Skip to main content

Full text of "California flood control program, 1965"

See other formats


TC 

SZ4- 

cz 



LlBKAKy 

UHIVERSITY OF CALIFORMM 

PAVIS 




APR 1 9 1965 

State of California 
THE RESOURCES AGENCY 

epart merit of Water Resources 



BULLETIN No. 159-65 



CALIFORNIA 
FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM 

1965 



FEBRUARY 1965 




HUGO FISHER 

Admin'tsfraior 
The Resources Agency 



EDMUND G. BROWN 

Governor 
State of California 

LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNW 

DAVIS 



WILLIAM E. WARNE 

Director 

Department of Water Resources 




Discharge below partially completed Orovllle Dam December 23, 1964 



State of California 
THE RESOURCES AGENCY 

Department of Wa ter Resources 



BULLETIN No. 159-65 



CALIFORNIA 
FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM 

1965 



FEBRUARY 1965 



HUGO FISHER EDMUND G. BROWN WILLIAM E. WARNE 

Adminisfrator Governor D/recfor 

The Resources Agency State of California Deportment of Water Resources 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 
FRONTISPIECE 

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL xiii 

ORGANIZATION xv 

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 

CHAPTER II. RECENT FLOODS IN CALIFORNIA 3 

Floods of November and December, 1950 3 

Floods of December, 1955 10 

Floods of February and April, 1958 11 

Floods of October, 1962 12 

Floods of January-February, 1963 1^ 

Floods of December, 1964 l6 

CHAPTER III. EXISTING AND PLANNED FLOOD CONTROL 

WORKS 23 

North Coast 23 

Russian River 23 

Mendocino Coastal Streams 25 

Eel River 26 

Klamath River Basin 26 

Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta . 29 

Flood Control Projects in Sacramento Valley .... 29 

Feather River 37 

Yuba River 39 

Bear River 40 



iii 



Page 

American River 4l 

Cosiunnes River 44 

MokeliJinne River 45 

Calaveras River 45 

Putah Creek 46 

Cache Creek 46 

Lahonton Area 4? 

San Joaquin Valley 50 

Lower San Joaquin River and Tributaries Including 

Tuoliimne and Stanislaus Rivers, California ... 51 

Lower San Joaquin River Levees 51 

Stanislaus River 52 

Tuolumne River 53 

Merced River 5^ 

Merced County Stream Group 55 

Mustang Creek 56 

Chowchllla River 57 

Fresno River 57 

The Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project. 58 

San Joaquin River Upstream from the Merced River . 58 

Big Dry Creek 59 

Kings River 59 

Kaweah River 60 

Tule River 6I 

Kern River 6I 

Poso Stream Group 62 



iv 



Page 

Central Coast and Bay Area 63 

Santa Cruz Area 63 

Pajaro River 64 

Monterey County 65 

Marin County 66 

Sonoma County , 67 

Napa County 67 

Solano County 68 

Contra Costa County 68 

Alameda County 70 

Santa Clara County 72 

San Mateo County 73 

Southern California 74 

Central Coastal Area 74 

Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Project .... 74 

Santa Maria River Levee Project 74 

Santa Ynez River Watershed Project 75 

South Coastal Area 76 

Ventura River Basin Project 76 

Santa Clara River Levee Project 77 

Santa Clara River Levee Project (Santa Paula 

Creek Channel) 77 

Calleguas Creek Watershed Project 77 

Lus Angeles River Watershed Project 78 

Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and 

Ballona Creek Project 78 



Page 

Renter Canyon Conduit and Channel 78 

Santa Ana River Basin Project 79 

City Creek Levee Project 80 

Escondido Creek Watershed Project 80 

Buena Vista Creek Watershed Project 80 

San Diego and Mission Bay Project 80 

San Diego County Flood Hazard Investigation .... 8l 

Colorado Desert Area 82 

Quail V/ash Levee Project 82 

Lahontan Area 82 

CHAPTER IV. FLOOD FIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES AND 

RESOURCES 83 

California Department of Water Resources 85 

U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers 86 

U. S. Weather Bureau 87 

The State Reclamation Board 88 

California Disaster Office 89 

California Division of Forestry 89 

California National Guard 90 

Non-Governmental Organizations Engaged in Public 

Assistance 91 

U. S. Office of Emergency Planning 91 

U. S. Armed Forces 92 

California Highway Patrol 92 

Local Law Enforcement Agencies 92 



VI 



Page 

Local Agencies 93 

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 93 

California Department of Employment 94 

CHAPTER V. AID PROGRAMS 95 

State Emergency Flood Relief Law 95 

Emergency Powers of Director of Water Resources .... 95 

Public Law 875 95 

Federal Aid Highway Act 96 

Public Law 99 97 

Small Business Administration Loan 97 

American National Red Cross 97 

CHAPTER VI. FLOOD DAMAGE AND PROBLEMS 99 

North Coastal Area 100 

Smith and Klamath River Basins 101 

Eel River Basin 103 

Russian River Basin 105 

Mendocino Coastal Streams 106 

Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta . . . 107 

Upper Sacramento Valley 107 

Sacramento River Flood Control Project IO8 

Sierra Streams 110 

Sacramento River Seepage Problem 112 

Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta II3 

San Joaquin Valley II5 



vii 



Page 

Central Coast'al and San Francisco Bay Area 115 

Santa Cruz County Il6 

Monterey County Il8 

Marin Coiinty Il8 

Sonoma County 119 

Napa Countj 119 

Solano County 120 

Contra Costa County 120 

Alameda County 122 

Santa Clara County 123 

San Mateo County 124 

Southern California 124 

Summary of Flood Damages 127 

CHAPTER VII. THE CALIFORNIA FLOOD CONTROL 

PROGRAM--I965 129 

Needed Projects and Project Studies 130 

Current Multiple-Purpose Project Studies Requiring 

Special Attention 130 

Projects Already Authorized 132 

North Coast 132 

Sacramento Valley and Sacramento- San Joaquin 

Delta 133 

Central Coastal and Bay Area 135 

San Joaquin Valley 136 

Southern California I38 



Ylll 



Page 

Projects Investigated But Not Yet Authorized . . . 138 

Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta 139 

North Coast 139 

Central Coast 140 

Southern California 140 

Comprehensive Basin-Wide Investigations l4l 

Needed Actions and Other Studies l45 

Utilization and Coordination of Flood Fighting 

Resources . l45 

Flood Forecast and Flood Warning Systems l46 

Revised Operation Criteria for Folsom and Shasta 

Reservoirs 148 

Protection of Existing Flood Control Facilities. . l49 

Expanded Approach to Flood Control 150 

Flood Plain Management 154 

Flood Plain Information Studies I56 

Watershed Management 157 

CHAPTER VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS 159 



ix 



TABLES 



Table 
Nximber 

I 

II 

III 



SELECTED STORM PRECIPITATION 
SELECTED FLOOD PLOWS AND STAGES 
FLOODED AREAS AND FLOOD DAMAGE 



Page 
4 
5 and 6 
128 



PLATES 

MAJOR DRAINAGE AREAS IN CALIFORNIA Plate 1 

HYDROGRAPH OF KLAMATH RIVER AT KLAMATH Plate 2 

HYDROGRAPH OF EEL RIVER AT SCOTIA Plate 3 

INFLOW - OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPHS - OROVILLE RESERVOIR. . Plate 4 

HYDROGRAPH OF YUEA RIVER AT SMARTVILLE Plate 5 

INFLOW - OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPHS - FOLSOM RESERVOIR. . . Plate 6 

COMPARISON OF MAXIMUT4 FIVE-DAY PRECIPITATION 

1955-1964 Plate 7 

COMPARISON OF PEAK DISCHARGES 1955-1964 Plate 8 

COMPARISON OF FLOOD VOLUMES 1955-1964 Plate 9 

PHOTOGRAPHS 

Page 
DISCHARGE BELOW PARTIALLY COMPLETED OROVILLE DAM 

DECEMBER 23, 1964 (DVffi Photo) Frontispiece 

RIO DELL, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 26, 1964 (Tele- 
photo, courtesy U.P.I.) 7 

AWAITING RESCUE. EEL RIVER NEAR FERNDALE, CALIFORNIA, 

DECEMBER 23, 1964. (Telephoto, courtesy U.P.I.) 7 

CRESCENT CITY, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER 27, 1964. HARBOR 
CLOGGED WITH TIMBER AND DEBRIS. LIGHTHOUSE AT LOWER 
LEFT. (Telephoto, courtesy U.P.I.) 9 



X 



PHOTOGRAPHS (Continued) 

Page 

KLAMATH, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER 25, 1964. BUSINESS 
DISTRICT AT LEFT, RESIDENTIAL AREA AT RIGHT. 
(Telephoto, courtesy U.P.I.) 9 

ENGLEBRIGHT DAM, DECEMBER 25, 1964 (DWR Photo) 13 

DAGUERRE POINT DAM ON DECEMBER 25, 1964 WITH FLOOD- 
WATERS FLOWING AROUND RIGHT ABUTMENT (DWR Photo) ... 13 

DECEMBER 25, 1964. SITE OF THE FEATHER RIVER LEVEE 
FAILURE THAT OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 24, 1955. 
(DWR Photo) 15 

DECEMBER 27, 1964. LEVEE MAINTENANCE CREW FIGHTS HIGH 

TIDES AND WINDS TO PROTECT TWITCHELL ISLAND (DWR Photo) 15 

DECEMBER 23, 1964. SACRAMENTO WEIR AND BYPASS CHANNEL 
DISCHARGE FLOODWATERS INTO YOLO BYPASS ABOVE SACRAMENTO 
(DWR Photo) 17 

SACRAMENTO RIA^ER AT FLOOD STAGE BELOW CONFLUENCE WITH 

AMERICAN RIVER. DECEMBER 23, 1964. (DWR Photo) ... 17 

FLOODING IN LOWER SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FROM BREAKS ALONG 
STANISLAUS RIVER LEVEES SOUTHWEST OF RIPON. (U. S. 
Corps of Engineers Photo) 19 

SHASTA DAM (DWR Photo) 43 

FOLSOM DAM ON DECEMBER 25, 1964 (DWR Photo) 43 



XI 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY WILLIAM E. WARNE, Director 



DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 



P.O. BOX 388 
SACRAMENTO 




January 29, 1965 



Honorable Edmund G. Brown 
Governor of California 
State Capitol 
Sacramento, California 

Dear Governor Brown: 

During the floods of the Christmas week of 1964, 
you ordered a review of the events during that flood and 
the preparation of a strengthened and accelerated flood 
control program. This work has Just been completed and I 
am pleased to submit herewith the full report. 

The program set forth in this bulletin would 
Increase our capability to prevent and to combat floods, 
would coordinate and strengthen the flood control activities 
of all participating agencies, and would provide a program 
on which all agencies could work to provide much needed 
additional flood protection. 

This is planned to be the first in a series of 
bulletins presenting an annual flood control program for 
the State. 

Sincerely yours. 
Director 



state of California 
The Resotirces Agency 
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 



EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor, State of California 
HUGO FISHER, Administrator, The Resoxirces Agency 
WILLIAM E. WARNE, Director, Department of Water Resources 
ALFRED R. GOLZE', Chief Engineer 



This report was prepared by a special committee 
consisting of 

Robin R. Reynolds, Chairman Division Engineer, 

Division of Operations 



and 

James M. Carl Senior Attorney 

Paul L. Clifton Associate Construction Analyst 

Albert J. Dolcini Principal Engineer 

Howard Drake Attorney 

J. J. Elliott Assistant Civil Engineer 

William L. Horn Principal Engineer 

Sam Kabakov Supervising Engineer 

John W. Keysor Principal Engineer 

Delbert D. McNealy Supervising Engineer 

Stuart T. Pyle Supervising Engineer 

Norman Sturm Economic Adviser 



XV 



CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 

In late December, 1964 the northwestern United States 
was struck by a great storm from the Pacific Ocean. There was 
widespread devastation. Unprecedented rainfall produced great 
rain floods In the Pacific Coast rivers and deep snow packs 
were laid down In the high mountains. 

There was widespread flooding In the northern half of 
California, and damage was particularly severe on the North 
Coast. Most of the major rivers carried the peak flows of 
record. Twenty-four lives were lost In California. The total 
direct damage In California Is estimated at over $140,000,000, 
although the full story of the damage Is still unfolding, since 
one month after the flood communication with many areas In the 
North Coast Is not yet reestablished. 

The great lesson of this flood comes from the fact 
that where dams and levees exist there was little or no flooding 
but where the rivers are uncontrolled there was great damage 
and destruction. The most Impressive performance was turned In 
by the unfinished Orovllle Dam on the Feather River which 
reduced the record peak flow of that stream by 100,000 cubic 
feet per second, undoubtedly preventing much flood damage and 
probably averting a disaster similar to that from the Christmas 
flood of 1955. With some of the existing dams there was a very 
close margin of safety. We came within a hair's breadth of 



-1- 



having an uncontrolled spillover from Polsom Reservoir Into 
the American River which would have put Sacramento at the 
mercy of torrential flows Into full channels. 

The December 1964 flood has brought into sharp focus 
the need to fully examine the State's flood control facilities 
and program and flood fight resources. 

California has developed an economy and has settled 
its 18 millions of people in areas which^ for the most part^ 
are subject to natural flooding. Recognizing this situation, 
the Legislature has declared repeatedly that the people of 
California have a primary interest in the prevention of loss of 
lives, property, and services that occur as the result of floods. 
The Importance of the flood problem in California also is drama- 
tized by the many flood control facilities and by the hundreds 
of reclamation and flood control districts, state agencies, and 
by several federal agencies, notably the Corps of Engineers, 
that are engaged in flood mitigating programs. The recent and 
past flood experiences indicate, however, that actions to date 
fall short of need. Additional flood protection must be provided 
as rapidly as possible. 

This report reviews this great flood and other recent 
floods, appraises the State's flood control and flood fight 
resources, and, from the lessons learned, recommends a strength- 
ened flood control program. 



-2- 



CHAPTER II. RECENT FLOODS IN CALIFORNIA 

Since the days of pioneer settlement the people of 
California have suffered great floods. The record begins with 
a diary note of a great flood In the Los Angeles River In 
1769-70. Floods In 1772, 1780, 1805, 1821, 1825, 1832, and 1849 
were followed by the near- legendary flood of 186I-62. This was 
followed by major floods In I867, 1879, I88I, I890, 1907, 1909, 
1911, 1917, 1928, 193^, 1937, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1945, and 1950. 

Since 1950 there have been eight major floods which 
have caused great suffering, loss of human life, and extensive 
damage to property and to the economy of California. 

The recent floods of November-December 1950, December, 
1955, February and April, I958, October, I962, January- February, 
1963, and December, 1964, are described briefly in the following 
paragraphs with regard to storm occurrence, flood flows, and 
damages. Significant precipitation records are summarized in 
Table 1; and flow and stages for representative stations are 
listed in Table 2. 

Floods of November and December, 1950 
During two storm periods, November 12-20 and Decem- 
ber 2-8, 1950, several series of weather fronts moved through 
Central and Northern California, bringing moist, tropical air 
to regions which had already received rainfall in excess of fifty 
percent of the normal total seasonal amounts. The November, 1950 
flood is particularly significant since it was the first time in 
recorded history that major flooding had occurred so early in the 
season. This record was to be broken, however, in October, I962. 



-3- 



TABLE I 
SELECTED STORM PRECIPITATIOK 



Dec. 15-28, 

1955 
;l4-day total, 
in inches 



Feb. 17-26, 
1958 
10-day total, 
in inches 



Nov. 13-21,: Dec. 1-10, 

1950 : 1950 
9-day total: 10-day total, 
in inches : in inches 



Eureka (Humboldt) 


1.92 


3.39 


8.35 


4.07 


Crescent City (Del 
Norte ) 


5.71 


6.73 


13.24 


7.11 


Garberville (Humboldt) 


3.42 


l.kh 


- 


11.11 


Alderpoint (Humboldt) 


2.49 


6.58 


16.81 


9.50 


Brush Creek (Butte) 


16.39 


13.10 


29.67 


7.56 


Blue Cfiuiyon (Placer) 


26.18 


13.27 


35.82 


7-05 


Shasta Dam (Shasta) 


3.58 


6.70 


29.84 


10.99 


Grant Grove (Tulare) 


13.89 


6.90 


22.53 


5.43 


Salinas (Monterey) 


2.79 


1.91 


5.02 


1.30 





Mar. 28 -Apr. 7, 


Oct. 7-14, 


Jan. 29-Feb. 4 


Dec. 19-25 




1958 


1962 


1963 


1964 




11-day total, 


8 -day total. 


7 -day total. 


7-day total. 




in inches 


in inches 


in inches 


in inches 



Eureka (Humboldt) 


5.26 


5.89 


3.46 


5.62 


Crescent City (Del 
Norte ) 


9.15 


9.04 


4.94 


8.04 


Garberville (Humboldt) 


10.94 


- 


9.09 


23.07 


Alderpoint (Humboldt) 


10.25 


13.95 


8.80 


17.28 


Brush Creek (Butte) 


12.94 


26.01 


14.97 


24.54 


Blue Canyon (Placer) 


14.01 


22.32 


17.76 


29.57 


Shasta Dam (Shasta) 


12.33 


10.81 


7.61 


16.15 


Grauit Grove (Tulare) 


13.30 


1.75 


10.07* 


3.^ 


Salinas (Monterey) 


4.4o 


.63 


2.81 


1.31 



* station not recording from February 1 to February 4. 



-4- 





•. m 




> <H 




o o 




H 


00 


Pt, C 


ir\ 


•H 


ON 




H 






• • •• 


. 




fi 




P 


•>-P 


fc 


0) (U 




bO 0) 




td <iH 




-p 




CO c 




•H 




.CO 




;* <H 




o u 




r-{ 


ir\ 


f^ a 


ir\ 


•H 


ON 




H 








6 




<5 






bO,D 




aj -Vh 




-P ^ 




CQ C 




-H 




-. to 




> ^^^ 




o o 




H 


o 


PiH a 


ITN 


•H 


ON 




r-l 






•• •• 


O 




a 


0) <u 




bO 0) 




cd <fH 




+j 




CO a 




•H 




•V CO 




:* <n 




o o 




H 


o 


fc c 


ITN 


•H 


ON 




H 






. . •• 


• 




> 




O 


•s-P 


s 


0) (U 




^^ 




CO c 




•H 


fl 


o 


•H 


-P 


(d 


^-> 




CO 



O 

8 


8 

ON 


o 

8 


O 
O 
LfN 


o 
o 
o 


u\ 


o 
o 


8 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 


o 


s 


o 

l/N 


o 

8 


8 


CM 
O 
H 


O 


l/N 
l/N 




ON 

m 

H 


CO 


ON 


2? 


m 

CM 


^ 


CM 


m 


VO 


^ 


3 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
en 

LA 



VO 
ITN 



O 
O 

H 



s 



ITN 



o 
o 


O 
O 


g 


H 


O 


o 


•v 


•\ 


•t 


CM 


C7N 


O 


(7N 


O 


H 




H 


CM 



O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


(0 


O 


o 


o 


o 


•\ 


•s 


•v 


•> 


en 
o 


s 


"S 


H 
O 


CM 


H 


CM 


CM 



00 



LTN 
CM 



O 
LfN 



cn 

CM 



o 
o 
o 

H 



H 
CM 



CM 



CJN 

CO 
CM 



VO 
CM 



O 

cn 



00 



o 

CM 



IfN 
CJN 



H 

m 



CO 

cvj 



ITv 

CO 
d 



CO 






LTN 
ON 


ON 
O 


CO 
LfN 


r-{ 
VO 


s 


00 
CM 


^ 


LTN 
H 


CO 


CO 


VO 
H 


H 



O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


C5 


ON 


O 


O 


H 


CO 


o 


O 


VO 


-:* 


•* 


•\ 


•» 


•V 


•v 


•\ 


•\ 


•s 


•v 


o 


r^ 


ITN 


O 


t- 


H 


ON 


CO 


O 


ITN 


J- 
ITN 


CM 

J- 


CJN 


t- 


H 


CM 


CM 


cn 



CJN 



VO 



t^ 


t^ 


O 
cn 


CM 

CM 


ON 


CM 


LTN 
Lr\ 


ON 


CJN 


H 
CM 


cn 

CM 




-4- 
CM 


CM 
CM 



O 

8 


o 

8 


! 8 


8 1 

VO 


1 CM 

1 OO 

VO 


O 
OO 
OO 


^^ 


S 


oo 

LfN 


VO 
CM 







oo 



on 



LfN 



CM 
H 



S 



00 



CJN 



OO 
OO 

CM 



O 1 II 


II 1 o 


Q 


O 


O 1 II 


II 1 o 


o 


O 


o 


H 


OO 


VD 


•V 


•^ 


•s 


•> 


J- 


lf^ 


H 


o 


o 


H 




r-{ 



o 

LTN 











Ch 




















CO 










<>H 




CO 






0) 










0) 










3 


-p 


■rl 






H 








CO 


QJ 






^ 


h 


H 


OJ 


H 






H 




• 




rH 


^ 


0) 




•H 


•H 


PP 


0) 


0} 






•H 




u 




OJ 


H 


-P 


O 


O 




fn 


a 




43 


> 




o 


CO 


^ 




H 


X! 


t 


t 


-« 


-P 


u 




-P 


o; 






<D 


o 


bO 


•H 


hO 


d) 


CO 


<i) 






c 




+J 


H 


Q) 


•H 


> 


•H 


Q) 


V 


K 




> 


cd 





u 




3 


•H 


f-> 


PQ 


O 


M 


CO 


CO 




M 




•H 


3 


Q) 


cd 


C 


s 


P< 




u 


,Q 


0) 


(U 


• 




-p 


+J 


d 


3 


-P 


H 




CO 


-p 


o 


0) 


K 


K 


Fh 


■P 


cd 


o 


C5 


cd 


cd 


J^ 




cd 




H 






C! 


Cd 




o 






o 


rs 


cd 


u 




• 


hO 


e 


<a 






• 


CO 


• 


• 


^ 




0) 


cd 


• 


u 


.§ 


o 


-p 


• 


• 


« 




M 


u 


-p 


c 


<u 


ffi 


a 


CO 


CO 


K 


K 




■p 


a 


c 




cd 




fl 








H 


cd 






c 


cd 






ft 




■ 




o 


• 


-P 


O 


^ 


O 


o 


•H 




■ 


• 


a 


• 


Vl 


■ 


N 


« 


cd 


fc 


CO 




•p 

G 


g. 




« 


K 


0) 


o 


o 


K 




^ 


• 


•s 


•\ 


0! 


0) 


Cd 


> 


j3 


§ 






cd 


CO 


fH 


(U 


K 


> 


> 






o 


•H 


■p 


• 


■p 


tJ 


cd 


3 


^ 




O 


o 


3 


3 


•-3 


K 




•H 


K 


3 


^ 


C 


-p 


cd 


H 


H 


u 


^1 






rt 


CO 




a 




•H 




a) 


^ 


<tH 


<M 


o 


o 


d 


i-i 


3 


CO 


■c) 


H 


3 


iH 


d 


<u 


13 


a 


fl 


03 


cd 


cd 


dJ 


d 


3 


cd 


cd 


^ 


Cd 


cd 


P^ 


>H 


H 


M 


CO 


CO 


CO 


W 


K 


S 


> 


CO 


CO 



bO 
cS 



C 

d 
o 

(U 

a 

•H 
■P 

a 
o 
o 



-5- 





rn 




W 




r"? 




< 




H 


^^ 


C'J 




Q 


§ 


'^ 


•H 


i 


o 


Q 


u 


K 


H 


« 


M 


y 



9 

§ 



EH 

O 



CO 





•^ W 




:* <H 




o o 




H 


J- 


Pm c 


vO 


•H 


ON 




H 


.. 


O 




0) 


•v-P 


n 


0) 0) 




hO (U 




cd l+H 




-p 




CO c 




•H 




•v CO 




? <M 




O CJ 




H 


OO 


pq C 


vO 


•H 


CTn 




H 


• • 


^ 




<U 


^+^ 


P^ 


(U Q) 




bO (U 




nJ <Vh 




-P 




CO C! 




•H 




•V W 




> tH 




o o 




H 


OJ 


P^ C 


O 


•H 


ON 




H 






• • 


• 




+> 




O 


•>-P 


o 


Q) OJ 




bD (U 




ni <« 




+^ 




CO C! 




•H 




•s to 




> <H 




O O 




H 


» 


fo fi 


Lr\ 


•H 


ON 




H 


, , 


M 




ft 


•^ 4-> 


< 


0) (U 




bO (U 




aJ tH 




+J 




CO C 




•H 


c 


o 


•H 


-P 


^ 




CO 



rt 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


<) 


o 


l/N 


o 


o 


o 


vo 


CVJ 


•\ 


»\ 


»* 


•\ 


»«. 


■s 


•^ 


o 


LTN 


o 


VD 


o 


8^ 


H 


l^ 


VD 


CO 


00 


1^ 


CVJ 


OJ 


H 


OJ 


H 


H 







o 
o 
o 

on 

H 






O 
VO 



o 
o 
o 



C3N 



VO 

OJ 

6 

-=^ 

ITN 



O 

m 

oJ 
en 

ITN 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


.^ 


•n 


*s 


•v 


•\ 


•\ 




o 


o 


o 


rH 


CO 


l/N 


LTN 


-^ 


CJN 


t- 


CVJ 




t— 


vo 













-d- 1 

00 • 


1 

1 UN 


OJ 
LTN 


OJ 


8 


vo 


^ 




LTN 
LTN 


vo 

H 


LfN 


O 
CVJ 


CO 
OJ 


CVJ 




CM 




C!N 


OJ 
H 



l/N 
C7N 

CJ\ 

CO 



o 
o 
o 

vo 



o 
o 

ITN 

•\ 
CJN 

J- 



CVJ 



vo 



O 
O 
VO 

vo" 



vo 



CVJ 



o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


LTN 


00 


o 


•v 


^ 


^ 




m 


J- 


o 


vo 


ai 


C7\ 


ro 


OJ 


H 









3 

oJ 



CO 
CVJ 

d 

OJ 



vo 

LTN 

00 

CVJ 



o 

J- 



CVJ 



o 

LfN 



CVJ 
vo 

CVJ 



vo 
vo 

H 



OJ 



OJ 
00 



C3N 

LfN 
LTN 

oo 



o 
o 

C3N 

o 

H 



s 



oo 



3 



o 



o 

H 
CO 

H 



VO 
CO 



CVJ 



o 

OJ 



CVJ 
CVJ 



oo 

CVJ 



o 

o 

CO 
LfN 



1 
O 1 


1 

1 t- 


-d- 


OJ 


o 


o 


00 


o 


CVJ 


H 
O 


I o 

1 LfN 


vo 

LfN 


OJ 


CJN 
CVJ 


CO 
CVJ 


o 


ITN 
LfN 


CJn 

J- 


CVJ 


vo 

H 


OO 


o 

H 



O 


o 
o 
o 


o 

o 

CVJ 


o 


o 


o 


o 
o 


O 


O 

o 
o 


8 

CO 


O 


O 
CO 

H 


O 
O 
LfN 


O 

LTN 


o 
o 
o 


H 


o 
irv 


o 

OJ 


CVJ 


H 


% 


OJ 

H 


CM 
LfN 
CVJ 


vo 
oo 

H 




Lr\ 


(3N 


H 
H 


t— 


oo 

H 



o 

CO 

• 

LfN 
H 



o 

CT\ 
OO 



O 
H 



CM 
H 



o 


O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 1 


O 


O 


o 


O 


C5 


O 


O 


8 


o 


o 


o 


O 1 


o 


O 


o 


o 


O 


H 


OJ 


On 


-d- 


o 


On 


OJ 


J- 


o 


CVJ 


•v 


•\ 


** 


•s 


•\ 


»\ 


•s 


•V 


»v 


»» 


•v 




H 


O 


C7N 


c;n 


00 


H 


On 


t- 


CM 


VO 


CM 


h- 


OO 


CM 


LTN 


b- 


00 


-* 


H 


^ 


H 


OJ 


OO 


H 



VO 











Hh 




















m 


m 










Vi 




m 






<u 










t) 












:3 


-p 


•ri 






jh 








to 


(U 








f^ 


U 


H 


QJ 


H 








• 




H 


^ 


o 


o 




•H 


•H 


PQ 


0) 


Cd 






•H 




u 




<u 


4J 


rH 


+3 


O 


o 




»H 


(U 




x; 


> 




o 


to 


A) 






H 
•H 


-§, 


r: 


^ 




+3 

CO 




+3 


0) 




+i 


H 






:« 


!> 


•H 





(U 


« 




> 


cd 


s 




13 


•rl 


u 


pq 


q 


s 




to 


CD 
01 


, 


M 


+J 


•H 

■P 


d 


3 


$ 


^ 


s 


^ 


-P 




o 


OJ 


K 


K 


^ 


4-> 


cd 


o 


o 


cd 


cd 


fn 




0) 


q 




H 






Cd 




o 






o 


> 


Cd 


u 




•rl 


F^ 


bO 


§ 


^ 






K 


CO 


^ 


• 
f4 


^ 


-p 


0) 

c 


cd 


K 


-d 


C 


to 


to 


« 


K 




+> 


C! 


c 




cd 




c 




<^ 






H 


cd 






C 


Id 






u 




. 




O 


-p 


• 


+J 


o 


^ 


O 


o 


•H 




• 


. 


cd 


. 


u 


• 


CJ 


1 


« 


cd 


PC4 


w 


-P 


4J 


3 


u 


K 


K 


(U 


u 


u 


K 


a 










c 


C 


C7< 


(U 






c 


o 






(D 


fH 


• 


•» 


»\ 


0) 




Od 


> 


Xi 


§ 






cd 


CO 


u 


■p 


(1) 


K 


> 


> 




€ 


O 


•H 


+J 


• 


-p 


-d 


cd 


s 


CO 


^ 




O 


o 


m 


3 


•^ 


K 




•rl 


K 


3 


^ 


c 


w 


-P 


cd 


H 


H 


^K 


^ 






g 


•01 




^ 




•H 






03 


^ 


<»-i 


<(-i 


o 


o 


§ 


:3 


(J 


to 


tJ 


H 


c 




0) 


3 


C 


C! 


od 


cd 


d 


i 


cd 


(d 


rH 


(d 


a 


^ 


P>^ 


>H 


M 


M 


CO 


CO 


CO 


w 


2 


> 


< 


CO 


CO 


--n 



-6- 




Rio Dell, California - December 2o, 1964 
( Telephoto, courtesy U.P.I.) 




Awaiting rescue. Eel River near Ferndale, California 
December 23, 1964 (Telephoto, courtesy U.P.I.) 

-7- 



The November storm brought heaviest amounts of rain- 
fall to the Sierra from the Kaweah River north to the Feather 
River, in amounts from l8 to 26 inches. During the December storm 
the heaviest rainfall occurred between the Tuolumne River and 
the Feather River in 8 to 12-inch amounts. 

The storms during these two periods caused heavy 
runoff from the Sierra watersheds, resulting in river flow of 
record or near-record levels. The November storms caused the 
Cosumnes River to crest at 27,200 cfs* at Michigan Bar, The 
American River at Fair Oaks crested at l80,000 cf s . The Kings 
River at Piedra crested at 110,000 cfs, and the Kern River flow 
at Bakersfield was estimated to be nearly 47,000 cfs. Stream 
flows were generally less during the December stonns . 

Flood damage caused by the first flood runoff 
occurred in the lowlands from the Kern River to the Yuba River 
and near Clear Lake in Lake County. Olivehurst, suburban 
Sacramento, Fremont, Visalia, and Kernville, are among the many 
communities damaged by flood water from the November storms. 
During December 2-4, flooding was generally along the 
Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and American Rivers, and near Clear Lake. 
Flooding during December 5-9 occurred along the American River, 
the lower San Joaquin River, and in the upper San Joaquin Delta. 



*cfs - cubic feet per second 



-8- 




Crescent City, California, December 27, 1964 
Harbor clogged with timber and debris. Lighthouse at 
lower left. (Telephoto, courtesy U.P.I.) 




Klamath, California, December 25, 1964 

Business district at left, residential area at right, 

(Telephoto, courtesy U.P.I.) 

-9- 



Floods of December, 1955 

The' floods of December, 1955^ which have been compared 
to the floods of I86I-62 because of the large volumes of water, 
were caused by a deep flow of warm, moist, tropical air from the 
central Pacific Ocean. The storms of December 17-26, consisted 
of alternating periods of heavy precipitation followed by inter- 
vening shorter periods of light precipitation. The area of 
heaviest rainfall was north of a line drawn from Santa Barbara 
to Bishop. Precipitation amounts for the storm period exceeded 
30 inches in wide areas and a few stations recorded amounts 
greater than 40 inches . Although rainfall occurred as high as 
the 6,000-foot level, the snowmelt contribution to runoff was 
believed to be insignificant. 

Peak flood runoff resulting from these storms exceeded 
maximum flow of record for most streams in the coastal areas 
north of Santa Barbara, in the Central Valley north of the Tule 
River Basin, in the Lahonton area north of the Walker River 
Basin and in the North Coast. Record flows of 148,000 cfs 
occurred on the Yuba River, 218,000 cfs on the American River at 
Folsom Reservoir, 541,000 cfs on the lower Eel River, 425,000 cfs 
on the lower Klamath River and 90,000 cfs on the lower Russian 
River. 

Most of the damage from this flood occurred along 
streams which were unregulated by reservoirs. Flood damage was 
extensive along the Klamath, Mad, Eel, Russian, San Lorenzo, 
Feather, Yuba, Calaveras, and Kaweah Rivers. Levee failures 



-10- 



occurred along the Feather River and the design capacity of 
leveed channels was exceeded on the Feather, Yuba, and Bear 
Rivers. Nearly one million acres were inundated including 
highly developed areas in and near Yuba City, Stockton, Fresno, 
Visalia, Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Eureka, Klamath, Santa Rosa, 
Guernevllle, and some tracts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta. Sixty-four lives were lost. 

Floods of February and April, 1938 
The 1958 storms were significant because of their pro- 
longed duration. From the first rains beginning in late 
January and extending almost continuously through early April 
the flood control works were subjected to high river stages. 
The stability of many levees was threatened by excessive 
saturation . 

The February floods were preceded by a series of 
storms which primed most of the watersheds in the central and 
northern parts of the State, On February 18, the first of two 
flood-producing storms struck the North Coast, This warm air 
dropped heavy amounts of rain in this area but only moderate 
amounts in the Sierra Nevada, The next and more destructive 
storm struck the Central California coast near San Francisco on 
February 24. This storm brought heavy rain to all of Northern 
California with rainfall up to 8,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada. 

Only light showers occurred during the remainder of 
February and early March, but a storm on March I6 brought 



-11- 



locally heavy rain to the Central Valley. During the period 
March 27 to April 5:, a series of storms brought heavy precipi- 
tation to the already saturated watersheds of Northern and 
Central California. 

The February storms caused record peak stages on 
streams along the west side of the Sacramento Valley, with the 
eastslde streams well below record levels. Some high stages 
were experienced in the North Coastal area and only minor rises 
occurred in the remainder of Northern and Central California. 

The March-April storms produced record peak flows In 
the Central Coastal area and on some stresuns in the Central 
Valley. Inflow to several Sierra reservoirs was estimated to be 
at record flows, and the regulated releases supplemented by 
local runoff produced record stages at some valley stations. 

Flood damage resulting from the two storm periods 
occurred in February In the North Coastal area, in the northern 
Sacramento Valley, and near Clear Lake; and throughout most of 
Northern California in April. The later floods inundated areas 
in or near Hamilton City, Stockton, Walnut Creek, Brentwood, 
Mendota, Patterson, Mill Valley, Napa, and the Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta. Several locally-owned levees failed or were 
overtopped in the Central Valley and in scattered coastal areas. 

Floods of October, 1962 
The flood of October, I962, was particularly signifi- 
cant because it broke all records for arriving early in the 



-12- 




Englebrlght Dam 
December 25, 1964 



,3 



'^Jt^* 




• "\ 




Daguerre Point Dam on December 25, 1964 
With floodwaters flowing around right abutment 

-13- 



season. Since most flood control criteria for reservoir opera- 
tion are based on a flood season starting on November 1^ this 
storm could have caused uncontrolled reservoir spills^ except 
for the fact that all of the watersheds were dry and absorbed 
most of the rainfall. 

The storm of October 7-l^j brought high-intensity 
rainfall generally confined to a 100-mile wide band extending 
diagonally across California from San Francisco to the Yuba 
River Basin. Heavy amounts of rain occurred at lower elevations 
as well as in the central Sierra Nevada. 

Few stations on major streams experienced record- 
breaking flows, but at many points the flows were the highest 
since the floods of 1955. Local flooding and landslides 
occurred in the North Coastal area and in the San Francisco 
Bay area. Crops were inundated in the Sacramento Valley with 
local flooding occurring near Sacramento. There was substantial 
property damage j and the loss of 20 lives was attributed to the 
storm. 

Floods of January-February, 19^3 
A foggy and relatively dry period occurred between 
the October storms in 1962 and the flood-producing rains of 
January 29 to February 1, 1963 . These later storm systems 
brought warm, moist air to the snow-free, frozen mountainous 
areas of Northern and Central California. Heaviest rainfall 



-14- 




December 25, 1964 
Site of the Feather River levee failure 
that occurred on December 24, 1955. 



^*^^-.j|i^ 




December 27, 1964 
Levee maintenance crew fights high tides and winds 
to protect Twitchell Island. 

-15- 



occurred In the Clear Lake area. In the Santa Cruz and Santa 
Lucia Mountains, and in the Sierra Nevada from the Feather River 
to the Kings River. 

New maximum inflows of 150,000 cfs and 240,000 cfs at 
Englebrlght and Polsom Reservoirs, respectively, were recorded 
during the January-February storms. Record flows also were 
experienced on several tributaries of the Feather, Yuba, and 
Bear Rivers, and in the Lahonton area. 

The January -February storms caused flooding in 
Geyserville, Healdsburg, Napa, Gilroy, Alvlso, Soquel, Portola, 
Qulncy, Chester, Slerraville, and Bridgeport. Many major high- 
ways, municipal waterworks, levees., and small dams were damaged 
by the f loodwaters . Property damage caused by the I962-63 
floods was less than that which resulted from the 1955 or 1958 
floods . 

F lood s of December, 1964 

The pattern of the December, 1964 storms was strikingly 
similar to that of December, 1955 , Warm, moist air brought 
heavy rain to all of Northern California north of a line from 
San Francisco to Stockton. Rainfall amounts for the period 
December 19-27 in the North Coastal area ranged from 10 inches 
to 30 inches and in the northern Sierra Nevada from 20 inches 
to 40 inches. 

Record-breaking flood crests occurred on many streams 
in the rainfall area. The crest on the Russian River near 



-16- 





December 23, 1964 
Sacramento Weir and Bypass channel discharge floodwaters 
Into Yolo Bypass above Sacramento. 




Sacramento River at flood stage below confluence with 
American River, December 23, 1964. 

-17- 



Guernevllle equalled the previous maximum^ as did the crest on 
Redwood Creek at Orlck. The Klamath and Eel Rivers far exceeded 
their previous maximuin flows. On the east side of the Sacramento 
Valley^ new maxima were recorded at Oroville on the Feather 
River (inflow to the reservoir behind Oroville Dsun which is 
presently under construction) ^ at Englebright Reservoir on the 
Yuba River J and at Folsom Reservoir on the American River. 

Damage due to these storms occurred mostly in the 
North Coastal area where high water, heavy rain, high wind, and 
landslides created one disaster after another. Villages were 
wiped out; bridges, roads, and communication lines were de- 
molished, and thousands of people were made homeless. In the 
Central Valley a few bridges were washed out, and Hell Hole 
Dam under construction on the upper American River collapsed. 



-18- 




-****. wfttf ,,, ,., 



« 



Flooding In lower San Joaquin Valley from breaks 
along Stanislaus River levees southwest of Ripon. 




-19- 



Plate 2 shows the synthesized hydrograph of the 
Klamath River at Klamath for December 20-26, 1964. The peak 
flow of 650,000 cfs occurred early December 23. The previous 
maximum of 425^,000 cfs occurred in 1955. 

Plate 3 shows the hydrograph of the Eel River at 
Scotia for December 20-26, 1964. The gage became inoperative 
at 11 p.m. on December 22, therefore the remainder of the 
hydrograph is synthesized. The peak flow was 750,000 cfs 
occurring early December 23^ surpassing the previous record 
flow of 541,000 cfs occurring in 1955. 

Plate 4 depicts the operation of partially completed 
Oroville Dam. The outflow occurred through the two diversion 
tunnels which discharged 157,000 cfs into the Feather River 
below the dam. This compares with the record inflow of 
250,000 cfs, surpassing the March 19, 1907 record flow at 
Oroville of 230,000 cfs and the December, 1955 flow of 
203,000 cfs. Peak inflow occurred in the early afternoon of 
December 22 and peak outflow occurred at noon on December 23, 
1964. 

Plate 5 shows the hydrograph of the Yuba River at 
Smartville. This includes the summation of "At Englebright 
Dam" and "Deer Creek near Smartville". The 171,800 cfs peak 
flow occurring late December 22, 1964, exceeded the previous 
record of 155,000 cfs established on Febr*uary 1, 1963. 



-20- 



Plate 6 depicts Inflow-outflow hydrographs of Polsom 
Reservoir for the period December 21-27, 1964. The record 
inflow of 280,000 cfs occurring late afternoon of December 23, 
surpassed the record established on February 1, 1963, of 
240,200 cfs. Failure of partly constructed Hell Hole Dam on 
the Rubicon River contributed to the peak. Releases were in- 
creased to a maximum of 115,000 cfs at 11 a.m., December 23, 
and continued until noon on December 25, when over the next 
24 hours, releases were reduced to 50,000 cfs. 

Plate 7 Is a comparison of 1964 maximum five-day 
precipitation with that of 1955. The amounts for Blue Canyon, 
Brush Creek, and Caraptonville are not significantly different 
for the two years, but the amounts for Alderpoint and Klamath 
Glen exemplify the severity of the 1964 storm. 

Plate 8 is a comparison of 1964 peak discharges with 
those of 1955. This bar graph tells much the same story as 
does Plate 7 with the Klamath River and Eel River surpassing 
the 1955 records by approximately 50 percent and the Feather, 
Yuba, and American Rivers experiencing record flows of from 
about 15 percent to 35 percent greater than 1955. 

Plate 9 compares 1964 flood volumes with 1955. The 
period of December 20-26 was selected for both years on the 
North Coast and December 21-27 for both years for the Central 
Valley area. 



-21- 



CHAPTER III. EXISTING AND PLANNED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS 

This chapter gives an account of existing and planned 
flood control works located throughout the length and breadth of 
the State. These are reported by hydrographic regions. It Is 
to be noted. In comparing the current Inventory of works with 
those recommended for construction In the Department's January, 
1956 report on "Floods of December, 1955 in California", that a 
number of works have been built during the intervening nine- 
year period. However, this is no cause for complacency for dur- 
ing this same period millions of people have been added to the 
State's population and most of them live in areas subject to 
flooding. 

North Coast 
Most streams of the North Coast have no flood control 
works. This also is the area where the greatest damage has 
been suffered from the floods of recent years. 

Russian River 

The Russian River Basin drains approximately 1,500 
square miles of Mendocino and Sonoma Counties and empties into 
the Pacific Ocean about 60 miles northwest of San Francisco. 
It is the southernmost major coastal river basin of Northern 
California. The plan of improvement contained in House 
Document 585, to alleviate damage due to major flooding which 
occurs on the average of every two years, provides for construc- 
tion of two reservoirs and channel stabilization works in three 
phases. 

-23- 



Phase 1 consists of the construction of Coyote Valley 
Dam and Reservoir (Lake Mendocino) on the East Fork of Russian 
River for flood control and water conservation purposes and was 
completed In April, 1959. The total capacity of this reservoir 
is 122,500 acre-feet, 48,000 of which are for flood control. 

Phase 2 will be construction of the Warm Springs Dam 
on Dry Creek, near Cloverdale. It was authorized by the Flood 
Control Act of 1962 and will provide flood protection for 20,500 
acres of agricultural and recreation lands and supply 90,000 
acre-feet of v;ater to Sonoma and Marin Counties. The reservoir 
will have a capacity of 277,000 acre-feet of which 125,000 will 
be for flood control. Federal funds for preconstruction planning 
were provided in January, 1964 and studies are in progress for 
preparation of the detailed design memoranda. 

Phase 3 provides for the enlargement of the storage 
capacity of the Coyote Valley Dam and Reservoir for water 
conservation. 

In addition, this three-phase program Includes channel 
stabilization and Improvement works, some of which have been com- 
pleted along the Russian River from Cloverdale to Healdsburg. 

During the last ten years, local Interests have spent 
an estimated one million dollars for additional construction of 
dikes, levees, training walls, groins, and bulkheads along the 
Russian River and Dry Creek. 

The Central Sonoma Watershed Project, covering about 
50,000 acres which drain into the Laguna de Santa Rosa and the 



-24- 



Russian River, Is now under construction. Floodwater detention 
dams on Brush, Finer, Spring, and Matanzas Creeks have been com- 
pleted and are in operation. The Santa Rosa Creek Reservoir 
complex. Including three earthflll dams and two diversion struc- 
tures with associated channels, is complete. Also completed are 
0.5 mile of concrete box culvert and 1.6 miles of earth channel 
improvements on Brush and Finer Creeks. Construction is now in 
progress on about eight miles of earth and riprap-lined channel 
Improvement on Santa Rosa Creek and its tributaries. This 
channel work Is expected to continue for another two or three 
years. 

The Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation 
District has had a continuing program of improving upstream 
tributary channels to Santa Rosa Creek independently of federal 
or state aid. 

Mendocino Coastal Streams 

Between the mouth of the Eel River on the north and 
the mouth of the Russian River on the south there are a large 
nvimber of relatively minor streams which drain in a westerly 
direction into the Facific Ocean. Included in this group are 
Mattole, Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia, and Gualala 
Rivers. 

At the present time there is neither flood control 
works nor water conservation reservoirs on any of the coastal 
streams of Mendocino County. Generally the streams are all 



-25- 



characterized by deep narrow gorges with a limited amount of 
bottom land. These deep gorges have a confining influence on 
the streams and thereby protect the adjacent communities usually 
located on the broad terraces along the coast. 

Eel River 

The Sandy Prairie Project is a levee system in 
Humboldt County on the right bank of the lower Eel River at 
the mouth of the Van Duzen River. The levee extends from a 
point just upstream from the Highway 101 crossing, downstream 
to the vicinity of Portuna and includes local private levees 
in the Eel River Delta. The project's piorpose is to channel 
flood waters of the Van Duzen River into the Eel River without 
flooding lands in the vicinity of Fortiina. This project, con- 
structed in 1959 by U. S. Corps of Engineers, is designed 
to pass a peak flow of 5^0,000 cfs in the Eel River. 

The Blue Lake Levee is located in Humboldt County on 
the lower Mad River and extends from approximately two miles 
east of the town of Blue Lake to a point approximately one- 
quarter mile below the county road bridge. This levee, con- 
structed in 1963 by U. S. Corps of Engineers is placed so as 
to permit the passage of a peak flow of 105,000 cfs. 

Klamath River Basin 

There are no significant flood control projects in 
the Klamath River Basin. However the accumulation of flood 
peaks is retarded to some extent by the storage capacity of 



• 26- 



irrigation and hydroelectric power reservoirs on the Upper 
Klamath River. These include Upper Klamath Lake, Copco Lake 
and Iron Gate Reservoir. 

Clear Lake Reservoir in Modoc County, constructed 
in 1910 by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation on the headwaters 
of Lost River, a tributary of the Klamath River, has a capacity 
of 526,800 acre-feet. Control of flood water was an important 
part of the reclamation plan. Excess flood flows of Lost River 
are diverted into Klamath River by a flat-graded diversion 
channel. High stages in the Klamath River caused by the Keno 
Reef reduce the capacity of this channel. In addition, the levee 
system downs trean has been designed to control damaging floods. 
The Tule Lake sump has been designed so that excess flood waters 
can be spilled into \ininhabited but farmed sump areas, if the 
volume of flood waters exceeds the main sump capacity. Flood 
and drainage waters that enter Tule Lake sump must be pumped 
into Klamath River. 

Trinity Reservoir, completed in 1962 by the United 
States Bureau of Reclamation provides some incidental flood 
control storage for flows of the Upper Trinity River. 

The East Weaver Creek levee system at Weaverville 
in Trinity County, constructed in 1963 by U. S. Corps of 
Engineers, provides for the safe passage of a peak flow of 
3,000 cfs. 

In Scott Valley near Port Jones a project to control 
flood flows of Hidden Creek by levees was undertaken by local 



-27- 



agencies. This project proved Inadequate during the 1964 
flood. 

Except for the projects on the Russian River and the 
Trinity and Clear Lake Reservoirs none of the foregoing faclll- 
ties within the North Coastal area should be considered to be 
parts of a final and fully developed flood control plan. They 
are stop-gap facilities offering protection only against 
moderate flows. 



-28- 



Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

Within the Sacramento River Basin there are a number 
of water control facilities that provide planned or incidental 
flood control and protection. 

Flood Control Projects in Sacramento Valley 

The Sacramento River Flood Control Project consists of 
a comprehensive system of levees^ overflow weirs, drainage 
pumping plants, and flood bypass channels extending along the 
Sacramento River from Collinsvllle upstream to Ord Bend and 
along its principal tributaries to high ground near the base 
of the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Range foothills. 

The project is a joint federal, state and local under- 
taking which was first approved for limited expenditure of 
federal funds in I918. Federal legislation enacted in I928. 
1937, 19^1, 19^^ 1950, 1958. and I96O modified the physical 
works of the projector Increased the extent of federal parti- 
cipation. The project was first adopted by the State of 
California in I9II and subsequent acts of the State Legislature 
generally paralleled the federal legislation. 

Within the Sacramento Valley and Delta areas there are 
approximately 1,0^0 miles of river levees which are a part of the 
Sacramento River Flood Control Project and on which the State 
makes semiannual inspections. These levees Include those 
enumberated in Section 836I of the Water Code together with other 



-29- 



project flood control works which are the responsibility of 
public agencies other than the State of California. Units 
maintained and operated by the State of California include: 

1. The east levee of the Sutter Bypass north of 
Nelson Slough. 

2. The levees and channels of the Wadsworth Canal, 
Willow Slough Channel downstream from the Southern 
Pacific Railroad from Davis to "Woodland except 
that portion of the north levee thereof lying 
within Reclamation District No. 2035- 

3. Putah Creek downstream from Winters, the intercepting 
canals draining into them^, and all structures 
incidental thereto. 

^. The collecting canals, sumps, pumps and structures 
of the drainage system of Project No, 6 east of 
the Sutter Bypass. 

5. The bypass channels of the Butte Slough Bypass, 
the Sutter Bypass, the Tisdale Bypass, the Yolo 
Bypass and the Sacramento Bypass with all cuts, 
canals, bridges, dams, and other structures and 
improvements contained therein and in the borrow 
pits thereof. 

6. The levees of the Sacramento Bypass. 

7. The channels and overflow channels of the 
Sacramento River and its tributaries within the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District. 

8. The Knights Landing ridge cut flowage area. 

9. The flood relief channels controlled by the 
Moulton and Colusa Weirs and the training levees 
thereof. 

10. The levee on the left bank of the Sacramento 
River adjoining Butte Basin, from the Butte Slough 
outfall gates upstream to a point four miles 
northerly from the Moulton Weir, after completion. 

11. All weirs and relief structures. 



-30- 



12. The west levee of the Yolo Bypass, extending from 
the west end of the Fremont Weir southerly to the 
Cache Creek Settling Basin and from Willow Slough 
Channel to Putah Creek and the levee of the Yolo 
Bypass from Fremont Weir southerly two miles. 

13. The levee on the west bank of Feather River extend- 
ing a distance of about two miles southerly from 
the Sutter- Butte Canal headgate. 

1^. The levees of Cache Creek and the easterly 
and westerly levees of Cache Creek Settling 
Basin. 

15. The flowage area of Western Pacific Intercept- 
ing Canal extending northerly for a distance of 
five miles from Bear River. 

16. The levees of Tisdale Bypass from Tisdale Weir 
^.5 miles easterly to Sutter Bypass. 

The following levee systems are within the Sacramento 

River Flood Control Project but are the responsibility of 

local areas to operate or maintain or are the responsibility 

of the State through the establishment of maintenance areas: 

(1) American River, (2) Arcade Creek, (3) Bear River, 

(^) Butte Slough Bypass, (5) portions of the Cache Creek 

Settling Basin, (6) Cache Slough, (?) portion of Colusa Basin 

Drain, (8) Coon Creek Group Interceptor, (9) Deer Creek, 

(10) Elder Creek, (11 ) Elk Slough, (12) portions of the 

Feather River System, (13) Georgi&na Slough, (l^) Haas Slough, 

(15) Honcut Creek, (16) Knights Landing Ridge Cut, (l?) Linda 

Creek, (18) Lindsay Slough, (19) Miner Slough, (20) Natomas 

Cross Canal, (21) Natomas East Canal, (22) North Dry Creek, 

(23) portions of the Sacramento River System, (2^) Simmerly 

Slough, (25) South Dry Creek, (26) Steamboat Slough, 



-31- 



(27) portions of Sutter Bypass, (28) Sutter Slough, (29) Three- 
mile Slough, (30) Ulatis Creek Bypass, (31) Western Pacific 
Interceptor, (32) portions of Willow Slough Bypass, 
(33) Yankee Slough, (3^) portions of Yolo Bypass, (35) portions 
of Yuba River System. 

The Sacramento River and Major and Minor Tributaries 
Project of the U. S. Corps of Engineers also is a unit of the 
comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in 
the Sacramento River Basin. This project provides for levee 
construction and/or channel enlargement on the following 
minor tributaries of the Sacramento River: Chico and Mud 
Creeks and Sandy Gulch, Butte and Little Chico Creeks, 
Cherokee Canal, Elder Creek, and Deer Creek together with 
levee revetments for Sutter, Tisdale, Sacramento and Yolo 
Bypasses. Approximately 72 miles of channel improvements 
and about 107 miles of levees and bypass revetments as 
required for protection of bypass levee slopes against 
erosion also are involved in the project. This project is 
a modification and extension of the Sacramento River Flood 
Control Project and supplements reservoir units of the 
comprehensive plan by providing flood protection to certain 
unprotected or partially protected areas along Sacramento 
River. When completed the minor tributaries unit will 
provide protection from floods to about 8,000 acres of 
agricultural land and to the City of Chico and other 
communities. The bypass levee revetment work will provide 



-32- 



protection to flood plain lands adjacent to the bypasses 
and will decrease requirements for levee repairs under 
emergency conditions. Construction of the project was 
initiated in 19^9 and suspended in October, 1950 following 
completion of improvements along Deer, Butte, and Little 
Chico Creeks. Construction was resumed in 1957. The Chico 
and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch Unit were completed in 1964, 
The active portion of the project is about 59 percent complete, 
with completion currently scheduled for December, 1970. Work 
remaining Includes completion of the bypass levee revetments. 

Flood control regulations of the Sacramento Valley 
Flood Control Project provides that the Federal Government 
will construct or finance the flood control features. The 
State provides land easements, rights-of-way and relocation 
of utilities, roads, and bridges and the State or local 
agencies assizme responsibility for maintenance and operation. 

The Chico Landing to Red Bluff Project of the 
U. S. Corps of Engineers to construct bank protection and 
minor channel improvements along Sacramento River between Chico 
Landing and Red Bluff was initiated in 19^3 and completed 
in Tehama County in 196^. Authorized work in Butte and 
Glenn Counties has not been started because of failure of 
counties to provide suitable flood plain zoning. 

In November, 1958, the U. S. Corps of Engineers 
completed construction of a levee along the right bank of 
the American River from Elvas Bridge to Carmichael Bluffs 
and pumping facilities for disposal of interior drainage. 



-33- 



The Sacramento River Bank Protection Project 
presently under construction by the U. S. Corps of Engineers 
Is a long-range modification of the existing Sacramento 
River Flood Control Project to include construction of 
bank erosion control works and setback levees within 
the limits of the existing levee system. The initial 
10-year phase consisting of approximately ^30,000 lineal- 
feet of bank protection work at critical locations was 
initiated in June,1963 and is 7 percent complete. Completion 
of the initial phase is presently scheduled for December, 1972. 

Under study by the U. S. Corps of Engineers are 
channel improvements on Jack and Slmmerly Sloughs. The 
Corps also has proposed channel Improvements and levees on 
Thomes and Antelope Creeks, on Wilson, Walker, and Willow 
Creek and levees and a bypass system for Butte Basin but 
these proposals are presently inactive because of lack of 
local support. 

Flood control works on the east side of the 
lower Sacramento Valley below the American River Include 
levee systems along the lower reaches of Dry Creek, 
Cosummes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras Rivers and minor 
tributaries and Stockton Diverting Canal east of Stockton. 

Farmington Reservoir constructed by the U. S. 
Coi^is of Engineers on Littlejohns Creek in the foothills 
east of Stockton provides substantial flood protection to 



-34- 



the area along Llttlejohns Creek and Duck Creek. The 
reservoir has a capacity of 52,000 acre-feet, all for 
flood control. The project Includes diversion of Duck 
Creek to Llttlejohns Creek and channel improvement and 
clearing of Llttlejohns Creek. 

The Jackson Creek project of the Jackson Valley 
Irrigation District now under construction includes a 
22,000 acre-foot reservoir which will provide no planned 
flood control, but will furnish some incidental protection. 

Projects under construction or planned also 
Include works on Duck Creek, Bear Creek, and Mormon Slough. 
Duck Creek Project now under construction by the U. S. Corps of 
Engineers intermittent channel enlargement in the lower 
reaches of Duck Creek east of Stockton to provide channel 
capadty for a 50-year flood. Completion is scheduled for 
this year. Flood control works are substantially complete. 
Bear Creek in San Joaquin County to carry a flood of 
■4,000 cubic feet per second and provide protection to about 
30,000 acres of orchard, vineyards and row cropland and 
suburban areas near Stockton. This project of the U. S. 
Corps of Engineers comprises 38 miles of low levees and 
22 miles of channel 

The Mormon Slough Project of the U. S. Corps of 
Engineers to increase the capacities of Mormon Slough 
and Calaveras River downstream from Bellota in San Joaquin 
County by channel clearing, enlargement, and levee 



construction has been authorized for construction. The 
improvements are designed to be coordinated with operation 
of New Hogan Dam and Reservoir for regulation of flood 
flows and will protect the city of Stockton and agricultural 
areas along Mormon Slough and Calaveras River. 

Ulatis Creek Project of the U. S. Soil Conservation 
Service now under construction and about l8 percent complete 
provides for channel improvement along Ulatis Creek in 
Solano County on the west side of Sacramento Valley. 

In the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta numerous 
leveed islands are separated by major and minor stream 
channels leading from the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Cosumnes, 
Mokelumne, and Calaveras Rivers. Many of the main channel 
levees are part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project 
and are joined to local levee systems which form and protect 
the islands, many of which are below sea level. No additional 
flood control features are new planned in the Delta area, 
although the U. S. Corps of Engineers has under consideration a 
long-range feasibility study of constructing flood control 
works as a part of a Delta master plan. 

The U. S. Corps of Engineers are currently conducting 
a study on navigation in the Sacramento-River Basin and Delta and 
a 2B-examination of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project 
which will have appreciable bearing on flood control. 

The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation has presented a 
plan of development and offstream storage on Kellog Creek 
in Contra Costa County which includes a reservoir with a 



-36- 



storage capacity of 135,000 acre-feet Including a flood 
control reservation of 8,000 acre-feet for protection of the 
lower Kellogg Creek area. The Bureau is preparing a final 
feasibility report at this time. 

Feather River 

The most important flood control storage structure on 
the Feather River is the unfinished Oroville Dam which probably 
averted a disaster similar to that from the Christmas 1955 
flood by temporarily impounding the record peak flow of the 
Feather River and substantially reducing that peak to safe 
downstream flows. When completed in 1967 the reservoir will 
have a capacity of 3,500,000 acre-feet of which 650,000 acre- 
feet will be available for flood control. There also are other 
reservoirs on the Feather River with an aggregate storage 
capacity of about 1,750,000 acre-feet, none of which is 
dedicated to flood control although some incidental control 
is provided. These reservoirs include those of Pacific Gas 
and Electric Company, the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation 
District and the Department of Water Resources. The largest 
reservoir is Lake Almanor on the North Pork with a gross 
storage of 1,308,000 acre-feet, owned by Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company and operated for irrigation and power purposes. 
The same company alao owns Bucks Creek Dam on Bucks Creek, a 
tributary to North Fork Feather River the reservoir of which 
has a gross storage capacity of 103^000 acre-feet and 
Butt Valley Dam with a storage capacity of slightly less than 



•37- 



50,000 acre-feet which also receives water from Lake Almanor 
and makes releases to the North Fork Feather River. The other 
Pacific Gas and Electric reservoirs have capacities less 
than 6,000 acre-feet. 

The Department of Water Resources has constructed 
Frenchman Dam on Little Last Chance Creek, tributary 
to Middle Fork of the Feather River. The reservoir has a gross 
storage capacity of 55,000 acre-feet. The water is used for 
irrigation and recreation but incidental flood control also 
is provided. The department also has constructed Antelope 
Dam on Antelope Creek tributary to Middle Fork Feather River. 
This reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 22,000 acre-feet, 
and being empty greatly reduced the flood peak on Indian 
Creek through Genessee and Indian Valleys. 

Other major water storage features include those 
of the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District which aggregates 
165,000 acre-feet for irrigation, municipal, power and domestic 
use. These Include: Little Grass Valley Reservoir on South 
Fork Feather River with a storage capacity of 93,000 acre- 
feet. Sly Creek Reservoir on Sly Creek with a storage capacity 
of 65,000 acre-feet and the Lost Creek, Ponderosa, and Miners 
Ranch Reservoirs with aggregate storage capacity of about 
8,000 acre-feet. 



-38- 



Construction in the Feather River Basin includes 
Grizzly Valley Dam on Big Grizzly Creek which will provide 
83,000 acre-feet of storage for recreation and conservation. 
Construction by the Department of Water Resources was 
Initiated in the fall of 196^. Planned construction includes 
Dixie Refuge Dam on Last Chance Creek with a storage of 
16,000 acre-feet and Abbey Bridge on Red Clover Creek with 
a storage of 11,000 acre- feet. These dams are authorized for 
construction by the department for recreation use but construction 
has not been scheduled. 

Yuba River 

Reservoirs on the Yuba River above Marysville provide 
approximately ^90,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. These 
reservoirs are operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 
Nevada Irrigation District, and Browns Valley Irrigation 
District. They Include Jackson Meadows Reservoir on Jackson 
Creek tributary to the Middle Yuba River with a storage 
capacity of 68,000 acre-feet. Lake Spaulding on the South 
Pork Yuba River with a storage capacity of 7^,500 acre- 
feet. Bowman Lake on Canyon Creek, 68,000 acre-feet, Scotts 
Flat on Deer Creek with a storage capacity of 52,000 acre-feet, 
Bullards Bar on the North Yuba with a storage capacity of 31,500 
acre-feet, Fordyce on Fordyce Creek, ^7,000 acre-feet, 
Englebright debris control dam on the Yuba River with 
a storage capacity of 70,000 acre-feet and Virginia Ranch 
Dam on Dry Creek tributary to Yuba River with a storage 



-39- 



capacity of 57^000 acre-feet. These reservoirs are operated 
for power and irrigation purposes and have no flood control 
reservations. 

Marysvllle Reservoir on the Yuba River a few miles 
above Marysvllle has been proposed for flood control and water 
conservation by federal, state and local interests. As now 
planned the project would Impound 1,000,000 acre-feet of which 
260,000 would be for flood control. Recent studies by the 
Department and the Corps of Engineers show the project to be 
economically justified and the reservoir is urgently needed. 

New Bullards Bar Dam on the Yuba River is planned as 
part of the Yuba Co\inty Water Agency project for power, con- 
servation, flood control and recreation. A 930^000 acre-foot 
reservoir is planned with 170,000 acre-feet of flood control 
storage which would be operated in cooperation with Marysvllle 
Reservoir for flood control. Pinal formulation of a project 
is now being completed. 

Bear River 

Reservoirs on the Bear River have a total capacity 
of about 172,500 acre-feet including the 103,500 acre-feet 
Camp Far West Reservoir of South Sutter Water District and 
the 9^000 acre-foot Combie Reservoir and the recently completed 
60,000 acre-foot Rollins Reservoir, both of Nevada Irrigation 
District. The Bear River system is operated for power 
and for irrigation with no flood control reservations. 



-40- 



since the volume of storage is relatively large in comparison 
with the runoff some incidental flood control is provided. 

American River 



Reservoirs on the American River have a total of 
about Ij 460, 000 acre-feet including Folsom Reservoir a unit 
of the Central Valley Project with 1,000,000 acre-feet storage 
capacity, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's 
Upper American River Project totaling 393^700 acre-feet includ- 
ing Loon Lake Reservoir 75^500, Gerle Creek Reservoir 1,200, 
Union Valley Reservoir 271, 000, and Ice House Reservoir with 
46,000 acre-feet. There also is the 20,000 acre-foot 
Stumpy Meadows Reservoir owned by Georgetown Divide Public 
Utility District and the North Pork Dam for debris control 
with a storage capacity of l4, 600 acre-feet. Folsom Reservoir 
is the only one of these with a flood control reservation. 
Folsom Reservoir has a flood control reservation of 400,000 
acre-feet and, together with the downstream levee system 
with a capacity of 115^000 cfs, provides protection from floods 
of the American River System. 

The Middle Pork American River Project, including 
the 134,000 acre-foot French Meadows Reservoir and the 
208,400 acre-foot Hell Hole Reservoir, is now under construc- 
tion by the Placer Coiinty Water Agency. No flood control 
reservation is included. During the recent floods partially 
completed Hell Hole Dam was overtopped and washed out releasing 



-41- 



30,000 acre-feet of water and resulting in severe damage to 
roads and bridges. Including destruction of the Highway 49 
bridge near Aubiirn. 

Auburn Reservoir on the North Pork American River 
has been proposed by the State for construction since 1931 when 
It was presented as a major linlt of The State Water Plan. It 
was further considered and strongly recommended by the Depart- 
ment In 1957 as a key feature of the California Water Plan. 

In 1959, the Bureau of Reclamation recommended con- 
struction of Auburn Reservoir with a storage capacity of 
1,000,000 acre-feet as a unit of the Central Valley Project. 
The reservoir would be operated for flood control and hydro- 
electric power and to provide water for distribution south- 
ward through the proposed Folsom-South Canal. The State's 
comments on this proposal were favorable and congressional 
authorization was unsuccessfully attempted. 

In 1961, the Bureau reconsidered Auburn Reservoir 
and recommended the storage capacity be 2,500,000 acre-feet. 
The State's comments again were favorable. Attempts to obtain 
congressional authorization have continued and are being 
actively pressed at this session of Congress. 

Under the proposed plan of operation for Auburn 
Reservoir, 200,000 acre-feet of flood control storage In 
Folsom Reservoir would be transferred to Auburn Reservoir 
where a total of 450,000 acre-feet of flood control storage 
would be provided. 



-42- 




Shasta Dam 





Folsom Dam on December 25 ^ 1964 



-43- 



Cosumnes River 

Sly Park Dam on the Cosumnes River with a gross 

storage capacity of 41,000 acre-feet is the only development 

on the Cosumnes River. There is no flood control reservation. 

The dam is owned and operated by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Tlie Cosumnes River Project proposed by the 
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation is a multiple-purpose plan for 
ivater conservation, flood control, power, fish and wildlife 
enhancement, recreation and water quality control. If 
authorized, the project would consist of an Initial and 
ultimate phase and be integrated with the Central Valley 
Project. 

The primary storage features included in a Initial phase 
are: (l) Nashville Dam and Reservoir, (2) Aukum Dam and 
Reservoir on South Fork Cosumnes River, (3) Pi-Pi Dam and 
Reservoir on Middle Fork Cosumnes River, and (4) Irish 
Hill Dam and Reservoir on Dry Creek. A total of 225,000 acre-feet 
of flood control storage at Nashville and Irish Hill Reservoirs 
would provide much needed flood protection to lands adjacent to 
Cosumnes River and Dry Creek. 



-44- 



Mokelumne River 

Major water storage developments on the Mokeliimne 
River System Include recently completed Camanche Dam and 
Reservoir owned by East Bay Municipal Utility District with 
a gross storage capacity of 431, 500 acre-feet, Pardee Dam 
and Reservoir also owned by East Bay Municipal Utility 
District with a storage capacity 210,000 acre-feet and Salt 
Springs Dam and Reservoir owned by Pacific Gas and Electric 
with a gross storage capacity of 139,400 acre-feet. None of 
these facilities has a flood control reservation, although 
the large storage capacity in relation to runoff provides some 
incidental protection. The Corps of Engineers now has a 
flood control project under advanced study. 

Calaveras River 

New Hogan Dam and Reservoir with a gross storage 
capacity of 325,000 acre-feet and a flood control reservation 
of 165,000 was recently completed by the U. S. Corps of 
Engineers and is operated for water conservation and flood 
control. 



-45- 



Putah Creek 

Montlcello Dam and Reservoir on Lower Putah Creek 
with a storage capacity of 1,600,000 acre-feet Is operated by 
the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation for water conservation as 
part of the Central Valley Project. Although there Is no 
flood control reservation in the facility, the large storage 
capacity does provide a large measure of flood protection on 
Putah Creek. 

Cache Creek 

Clear Lake Dam which regulates 420,000 acre-feet of 
capacity in Clear Lake controls flows from the drainage area 
tributary to Clear Lake. This storage capacity is operated 
for conservation but also provides some flood control on 
Cache Creek, althoiigh the lower 550 square miles of the 
drainage area are uncontrolled at the present time. 

In the watershed tributary to Clear Lake the streams 
are substantially uncontrolled, although channel Improvements, 
levees, and minor dams have been constructed in some areas. 
The Adobe Creek Project of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service 
to provide channel Improvements on Adobe Creek is 85 percent 
complete. 

The U. S. Corps of Engineers has nearly completed 
Middle Creek Project which provides for enlargement of exist- 
ing levees, construction of additional levees, channel improve- 
ments along the lower seven miles of Middle Creek and tributary 



-46- 



streams, a piimplng plant for disposal of interior drainage and 
construction of a 4,000-foot channel to divert Red Clover Creek 
flows around the town of Upper Lake. The project provides 
flood protection to the town of Upper Lake and to about 
4,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land. 

Lakeport Reservoir on Scotts Creek just west of 
Lakeport has been reported on favorably by the U. S. Corps of 
Engineers, and authorization from the Congress has been 
requested. This Is a multiple-purpose project for water con- 
servation and flood control with a gross storage capacity of 
55,000 acre-feet, with 24,000 acre-feet reserved for flood 
control. Wilson Valley Dam on Cache Creek below the North 
Fork was planned, as part of a larger project by Yolo County 
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, to provide a 
gross storage capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet, with 65,000 
acre-feet of flood control reservation, but the project was 
rejected by the voters in 1964. The district is now conduct- 
ing studies of a 300,000 acre-foot reservoir at Indian Valley 
on North Fork Cache Creek, with a flood control reservation of 
40,000 acre-feet. 

Lahonton Area 

Existing storage on Truckee River tributaries Includes 
the 40,000 acre-foot Boca Reservoir on Little Truckee River and 
the recently constructed Prosser Reservoir on Prosser Creek with 
a storage capacity of 30,000 acre-feet, both constructed by the 



-47- 



U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. Boca Reservoir has no flood 
control reservation but provides Incidental protection to the 
downstream Truckee River area. Prosser Reservoir provides 
storage for 20,000 acre-feet of flood water and provides some 
protection to the Truckee River and Reno areas. 

Interim channel Improvement on the Truckee River 
and tributaries downstream from Lake Tahoe was made from 1959 
through 1964 by the U. S. Corps of Engineers to provide for 
more rapid releases from Lake Tahoe during floods, thus 
alleviating damage to lakeshore properties. 

In the Lake Tahoe area the U. S. Corps of Engineers 
has been authorized to construct Martls Creek Reservoir 
tributary to Truckee River below Truckee. This project, now In 
preconstructlon planning, will create a 15^000 acre-foot 
flood control reservoir to decrease flood peaks In all reaches 
of the Truckee River below Martls Creek. 

Stampede Reservoir on Little Truckee River above 
Boca Reservoir has been authorized for construction by the 
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. This reservoir will have a total 
storage capacity of 225,000 acre-feet. Including 30,000 acre-feet 
flood control space to furnish additional flood protection to 
downstream areas adjacent to the Truckee River and to the Reno 
area. Construction may start in 1967 if constructed prior to 
the Bureau's Watasheamu Project authorized for construction on 
the East Fork Carson River. If the projects are constructed 



-48- 



simultaneously, construction will probably begin about 1970. 
The Watasheamu Project will provide for a 160,000 acre-foot 
reservoir with 85:, 000 acre-feet of flood control space to 
furnish substantial flood protection to the Carson Valley. 
The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation has completed a 
preliminary study of a reservoir on West Walker River with a 
gross storage capacity of 110,000 acre-feet and with a flood 
reservation of 30,000 acre-feet to provide substantial down- 
stream protection. 



-49- 



San Joaquin Valley 
This area extends from the Stanislaus River watershed 
and Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta southward to the Tehachapi 
Mountains. Many flood control works have been constructed on 
the waterways emanating from the base of the Sierra Nevada on 
the eastern side of the valley. However, considering that the 
valley is one of the important agricultural areas of the world 
and its population and industries continually are expanding, 
this great valley continues to need additional protection. 



-50- 



Lower San Joaquin River and Tributar ies _Inc ludlng Tuolumne 
and~5t"anlslaus Rivers, Calll'ornla 

The Lower San Joaquin River Levees, New Melones Reser- 
voir, and Tuolumne River Reservoirs are U. S. Corps of Engineers' 
projects which were authorized by the federal Flood Control 
Act of 19^^, as modified by the Flood Control Act of 1962. These 
projects are described below. 

Lower San Joaquin River Levees . This project provides 
for Improvement by the Federal Government of the existing channel 
and levee system on the San Joaquin River from the Sacramento- 
San Joaquin Delta upstream to the mouth of the Merced River, 
and on the lower reaches of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers, 
by Improvement of existing levees, construction of 
new levees, revetment of some river banks, and removal 
of accumulated snags In the river channel. The project is 
an Integral unit of the U. S. Corps of Engineer's authorized plan 
for flood control and other purposes In the San Joaquin River 
Basin. It is designed to supplement the reservoir units of the 
overall plan, consisting mainly of flood control storage on the 
Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers and in the existing Mlllerton 
Reservoir at Friant Dam on the upper San Joaquin River, by 
providing channel capacities along San Joaquin River sufficient 
to safely pass regulated flows. The overall plan will provide 
flood protection to about 135,000 acres of agricultural land, 
to numerous commercial and public installations, and to a 
suburban area south of the City of Stockton. 



-51- 



Construction of the project was initiated in 1956 
and as of January 1, 1965,was about 68 percent complete. 
Construction of the left bank levee along the San Joaquin 
River from the Tuolumne River to the Merced River has been 
classified as "inactive" since 196I due to difficulties in 
arranging for local Interests to accept maintenance 
responsibility. 

Stanislaus River . Existing developments on Stanislaus 
River providing flood regulation are the Melones, Donnells, 
Beardsley, and Tulloch Dams and Reservoirs with an aggregate 
storage capacity of approximately 343,000 acre-feet. The pro- 
tection afforded by these reservoirs, which are operated and 
owned by local irrigation districts, is not adequate; and the 
Corps of Engineers proposes to construct the authorized New 
Melones Dam and Reservoir which will increase the 
storage capacity at the Melones site from the existing 112, 5OO 
acre-feet to 2,400,000 acre-feet. 

New Melones will provide flood protection to about 
35,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land in the flood 
plain of the Stanislaus River and to the suburban areas of 
Ripon, Oakdale, and Riverbank. In conjunction with storage 
projects on the Tuolumne River and authorized levees on the 
lower San Joaquin River, New Melones will provide flood pro- 
tection to about 50,000 acres of agricultural land along the 
San Joaquin River below the mouth of the Stanislaus River, 
to about 185,000 acres of intensively cultivated land in the 



-52- 



Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta, and to suburban areas south of 
the City of Stockton. 

Preconstruction planning on the New Melones Project 
was Initiated In January, 1964. The Corps of Engineers expects 
the project to be completed In 1974. 

Tuolumne River . Developments on the Tuoliomne River 
affording flood regulation are Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir, and 
Cherry Valley Reservoir owned by the City and County of San 
Francisco and Don Pedro Reservoir owned by the Turlock and 
Modesto Irrigation Districts. The three reservoirs have an 
aggregate storage capacity of approximately 918,000 acre-feet 
and, under agreement with the Corps of Engineers, will be 
operated for flood control by the local interests until the 
2,030,000 acre-foot New Don Pedro Reservoir, which will Inundate 
the existing 290,000 acre-foot Don Pedro Reservoir, is con- 
structed and in operation. Upon completion, flood control 
regulation will be transferred to New Don Pedro. New Don Pedro 
will be constructed and operated by the Turlock and Modesto Irri- 
gation Districts under a copperatlve arrangement with the City 
and County of San Francisco and the Federal Government. 

The Federal Power Commission Issued a license for the 
New Don Pedro Project on May 6, 1964. The Department of the 
Interior and the California Department of Fish and Game subse- 
quently filed complaints on July 6, 1964, asking for a court 
hearing against the licensee and the Commission. Initiation of 
construction on New Don Pedro is dependent upon the court's 
decision. 



-53- 



Operation of the Tuolumne River reservoirs for flood 
control will provide flood protection to about 8,000 acres of 
agricultural lands and several communities along the Tuolumne 
River. The flood control afforded by the reservoirs is 
essential to the successful operation of the Lower San Joaquin 
River Levees. 

Merced Rive r 

Development on the Merced River affording flood 
regulation is the Merced Irrigation District's 289,000 acre- 
foot Exchequer Ifeservoir. The reservoir is operated primarily 
for the storage of irrigation water and the development of 
hydroelectric power, but provides a considerable amount of 
incidental flood regulation. 

At present, construction is well under way on the 
1,000,000 acre- foot New Exchequer Dam and Reservoir, the first 
stage of the Merced River Development. The new reservoir will 

inundate existing Exchequer Dam. New Exchequer is being 
constructed by the Merced Irrigation District and will be 
operated for flood control under a cooperative arrangement with 
the Federal Government. The project is scheduled for completion 
by January, I967. 

New Exchequer will provide flood protection to about 
50,000 acres of agricultural lands along the Merced River and 
will alleviate flooding on the San Joaquin River and in the Delta 
area. The flood control afforded by the New Exchequer project 



-54- 



will materially add to the effectiveness of the Corps of 
Engineers' project on the lower San Joaquin River and tribu- 
taries Including Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers. 

Merced County Stream Group 

The principal streams In the Merced County Stream 
Group are Burns, Bear, Owens and Mariposa Creeks. The Corps 
of Engineers, In 1957^ completed a flood control project on 
these streams consisting of channel Improvements and retarding 
reservoirs on Burns, Bear, Owens and Mariposa Creeks with 
capacities of 7,000, 7,700, 3,600 and 15,000 acre-feet, res- 
pectively. The project provides flood protection to about 
136,000 acres of agricultural lands, the City of Merced, the 
towns of Planada and Le Grand, other communities, and highway 
and railroad facilities. 

The existing project is not adequate for protection 
against large floods and the Corps of Engineers is currently con- 
ducting studies to determine a plan of improvement. The tenta- 
tive plan of improvement consists of new reservoirs, namely 
Castle Reservoir with a gross capacity of 11, 500 acre-feet on 
Canal Creek; Haystack Mountain Reservoir with a gross capacity 
of 5,900 acre-feet on Black Rascal Creek; Aqua Fria Reservoir 
with a gross capacity of 66,000 acre-feet on Mariposa Creek; 
Marguerite Reservoir with gross capacity of 7,500 acre-feet, 
crossing both Deadman and Dutchman Creeks; the enlargement of 
the existing Burns, Bear and Owens Reservoirs to capacities of 



-55- 



21,000, 17,000 and 6,500 acre-feet, respectively; and, as an 
alternative to Aqua Frla Reservoir, enlarging existing Mariposa 
Reservoir to 30,000 acre-feet. The eight reservoirs would pro- 
vide 70,000 acre-feet of flood control space, and would include 
recreation as a project purpose. Channel improvements would 
Include 42 miles of channel enlargement, 85 miles of levee con- 
struction or enlargement, and 15 miles of minor channel 

Improvement. 

The Corps expects to complete its studies and submit 

a survey report thereon some time in I965. 

Mustang Creek 

The Mustang Creek watershed is located mostly in 
northeastern Merced County. Mustang Creek, along with other 
smaller streams, discharges into the High Line Canal, an irriga- 
tion canal owned and operated by the Turlock Irrigation District. 
The District operates its canal system to control the flood flows 
of Mustang Creek, up to the capacity of its canals, by discharging 
them through wasteways into the Merced or San Joaquin River. 

Additional flood protection is needed. The areas 
adjacent to the lovier reaches of Mustang Creek have historically 
been subject to some degree of flooding in about one year out of 
three. The severe flood of 1938 inundated over 1,600 acres. 
Flood damages are primarily agricultural but significant damage 
has occurred to a county road and the canal system of the Turlock 
Irrigation District. 



-56- 



To alleviate the situation local interests are 
sponsoring a flood control project on Mustang Creek \inder 
provisions of Public Law 566, the Watershed Protection and 
Flood Prevention Act. The work plan is in preparation and 
should be completed in 1965. The proposed plan includes a 
flood retarding stmicture in the upper watershed of Mustang 
Creek, downstream channel improvement, and land treatment 
measures. 

Chowchilla River 

There is no development of any consequence on the 
Chowchilla River that affords flood protection. However, 
Buchanan Reservoir was authorized by the federal Flood Control 
Act of 1962. The project provides for construction of a dam 
on the Chowchilla River to create a reservoir with a gross 
storage capacity of 150,000 acre-feet for flood control and 
other purposes and approximately five miles of channel and 
levee improvements along Ash Slough, a distributary of the 
Chowchilla River. The project will provide flood protection 
to about 110,000 acres of urban and rural areas, including the 
City of Chowchilla. 

Preconstruction planning for the project was initiated 
in January, 1964, by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. 

Fresno River 

There is no development of any consequence on the Fresno 
River that affords flood protection. However, Hidden Reservoir 



-57- 



was authorized by the federal Flood Control Act of 1962. The 
project provides for the construction of a dam on the Fresno 
River, which will create a reservoir with a gross capacity of 
about 90,000 acre-feet for flood control and other purposes, 
and approximately seven miles of levee and channel Improvement 
on the Fresno River downstream from the damslte. The project 
will provide flood protection to about 145,000 acres of urban and 
rural area, including the City of Madera. 

Preconstructlon planning for the project was Initiated 
in January, 1964, by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. 

The Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project 

The State is currently constructing a project along 
and parallel to the San Joaquin River from the Merced River to 
a point west of Fresno. The project comprises a levee and bypass 
system for flood control which will permit the proper function- 
ing of Friant Dam and Reservoir for flood control. The project 
was initiated in 1959. To date, contracts have been completed on 
about 100 miles of new levees, including appurtenant features, 
and on about 100 miles of existing levees which were refaced. 
The project is about 63 percent complete. 

San Joaquin River Upstream from the Merced River 

There are several reservoirs in the upper San Joaquin 
River watershed used primarily for power generation that pro- 
vide some flood storage but the most important dam on the 



-58- 



river Is Prlant Dam located at the rim of the valley. The dam 
and 520,500 acre-foot reservoir were built by the U. S. Bureau 
of Reclamation as part of the Central Valley Project and are 
operated by the Bureau in accordance with flood control cri- 
teria which requires a flood control reservation of 390,000 
acre-feet. The flood storage and regulation afforded by Friant 
Reservoir (Millerton Lake) alleviates flooding downstream 
along the San Joaquin River. 

Big Dry Creek 

Flood control facilities on Big Dry Creek consist of 
Big Dry Creek Reservoir and diversion facilities both upstream 
and downstream from the reservoir which were constructed by the 
U. S. Corps of Engineers in 19^8. The reservoir has a gross 
storage capacity of 16,250 acre-feet, all of which is reserved 
for flood control. 

By diverting the flows of Dog and Big Creeks to Little 
Dry Creek, and subsequently to the San Joaquin River, the proj- 
ect provides a high degree of flood protection to the Cities of 
Fresno and Clovis and their suburban areas. 

Kings River 

Courtright and Wishon Reservoirs, constructed in the 
upper Kings River watershed for power purposes by the Pacific 
Gas and Electric Company, afford some flood storage, but the 
principal development on the Kings River providing flood pro- 
tection is the Pine Flat Project, constructed by the Corps of 



-59- 



Engineers in 195^. The project comprises (l) Pine Flat Dam and 
Reservoir which has an impounding capacity of 1,000,000 acre- 
feet and is operated primarily for flood control, and (2) 
downstream channel Improvements on the Kings River and its 
distributaries on the valley floor to provide capacity to 
contain flood releases from the reservoir, to permit proper 
operation of the reservoir, and to assure proper division of 
flood flows through the several distributaries. 

The channel improvements remain to be constructed. 
Current schedules call for initiation of construction of these 
remaining Improvements in fiscal year 1965 and for completion in 
fiscal year 1966. 

The project will protect some 80,000 acres of rich 
agricultural lands in the Kings River area and will provide 
protection against the flooding of 260,000 acres of excellent 
croplands in the Tulare Lake Basin. 

Kaweah River 

Flood protection on the Kaweah River is provided by 
Terminus Dam and Reservoir constructed by the Corps of Engineers 
In 1962. The reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 
150,000 acre-feet and Is operated primarily for flood control. 
The reservoir provides a high degree of flood protection to 
about 126,000 acres of agricultural and suburban lands in the 
Kaweah River Delta area, including the City of Vlsalia and 
adjacent urban and suburban areas and provides protection from 



-60- 



waters of the Kaweah River to 260,000 acres of highly productive 
land In the Tulare Lake Basin. 

Tule River 

Flood protection on the Tule River Is provided by 
Success Dam and Reservoir constructed by the Corps of Engineers 
In 1961. The reservoir has a gross storage capacity of about 
80,000 acre-feet and Is operated primarily for flood control. 
The reservoir provides protection to about 60, 000 acres of 
agricultural and suburban lands along the Tule River and dis- 
tributaries, to the City of Portervllle and suburban areas, 
and provides protection from waters of the Tule River to 260,000 
acres of highly productive agricultural land In the Tulare Lake 
Basin. 

Kern River 

Flood protection on the Kern River Is provided by 
Isabella Dam and Reservoir constructed by the Corps of Engineers 
In 1953. The reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 570,000 
acre-feet and Is operated primarily for flood control. The 
project also Improves the Irrigation water supply In the Kern 
River Delta area. The reservoir provides protection to about 
350,000 acres of agricultural lands and oil fields In the Kern 
River Delta area, to the City of Bakersfleld, and provides pro- 
tection from waters of the Kern River to 260,000 acres of cropland 
In the Tulare Lake Basin. 



-61- 



The Corps of Engineers Is currently Investigating 
further water resources development on the Kern River in the 
interest of flood control, recreation, irrigation, and other 
piirposes, and expects to complete a survey report in 1965. 

Poso Stream Group 

This stream group, located between the Tule and Kern 
Rivers, is composed of Poso and Deer Creeks and White River. 
Flooding on these streams results from rainstorms, and 
the flood flows are characterized by sharp peaks. Damage occurs 
to roads and bridges and, where the flood waters spread out, to 
cropland and local communities. 

The Corps of Engineers is conducting studies of the 
stream group to determine whether provision for flood control 
improvements on the three streams is economically feasible. 
Consideration is being given to reservoir storage, levees, and 
channel improvement. The studies are being coordinated with the 
Bureau of Reclamation as that agency is proposing an 800,000 
acre-foot dam and reservoir on Deer Creek as part of its pro- 
posed East Side Division of the Central Valley Project. The 
Corps expects to complete a survey report on its studies in 
1965. 



-62- 



Central Coast and Bay Area 
This embraces an area from Napa and Marin Counties on 
the north to Monterey County on the south. There are numerous 
flood control works in this area. However, there also are some 
important gaps or omissions as indicated herein. 

Santa Cruz Area 

The San Lorenzo River system drains about 120 square 
miles above the City of Santa Cruz and includes one dam which 
provides flood control only incidental to water conservation. 
The Loch Lomond Reservoir on Newell Creek has a total storage 
capacity of 8,400 acre-feet and controls only about ten per- 
cent of the total runoff. 

Within the City of Santa Cruz the U. S. Corps of 
Engineers completed the San Lorenzo River Project in November, 
1959. This project provides levees and flood walls along the 
loxver 2.5 miles of the San Lorenzo River together with minor 
channel improvements for the purpose of providing flood protec- 
tion to the city. There are also included channel improvements 
and rectification of Branciforte Creek. The improvements 
provide for design flows of 36,800 cfs in the San Lorenzo River 
above Branciforte Creek, 5^600 cfs in Branciforte Creek and 
40, 600 cfs below Branciforte Creek. This provides protection 
from a flood which is not expected to be equalled or exceeded 
on an average of once in 350 years. Flood peaks in Branciforte 
Creek normally do not occur at the same time as flood peaks in 
the San Lorenzo River. 



-63- 



Soquel Creek drains about 40 square miles and Is a 
flashy stream with a peak being produced about four hours 
after the occurrence of a flood-producing storm. Channel 
Improvement since the floods of 1955 includes channel clearing 
in the lower basin reaches made under provisions contained in 
Public Law 875. Existing flood control improvements constructed 
by local interests consist of noncontinuous bank protection 
work. 

Pajaro River 

The Pajaro River drains 1,300 square miles of the Coast 
Range of California. There are five dams which provide flood 
control only incidental to water conservation. These are: (l) 
Pacines Dam on a stream tributary to Tres Pinos Creek with a 
reservoir capacity of 4,500 acre-feet; (2) Hernandez Dam on the 
San Benito River with a reservoir capacity of 18,000 acre-feet; 
(3) North Fork Pacheco Creek Dam with a reservoir capacity of 
6,150 acre-feet; (4) Chesbro Dam on Llagas Creek with a reser- 
voir capacity of 7,630 acre-feet; and (5) Uvas Dam on Uvas Creek 
with a reservoir capacity of 10,000 acre-feet. 

The existing federal flood control project, completed 
in 1949, consists of about 11 miles of levee along the lower 
Pajaro River and 2 miles of levee on Salsipuedes Creek immediately 
above its confluence with the Pajaro River. The levee maintenance 
is provided by the Santa Cruz County Storm Drain District and by 



-64- 



the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation 
District. With the existing project the river channel has a 
capacity of about 19,000 cfs or a frequency of about once in 
10 years. 

Upstream from the Corps of Engineers' project on 
Corralitos Creek, bank-protection works have been constructed 
by private individuals and the Santa Cruz County Flood Control 
and Water Conservation District. The Counties of Monterey and 
Santa Cruz and the City of Watsonville have expended approxi- 
mately $200,000 on channel clearing, levee maintenance and bank- 
protection works along Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks and 
Pajaro River in Pajaro Valley since completion of the federal 
project in 19^9. 

Monterey County 

In the upper Salinas River basin there is an earthfill 
dam and reservoir on the Nacimiento River with a total storage 
capacity of 350,000 acre-feet of which 150,000 acre-feet is 
reserved for flood control. 

At the present time there are no major flood control 
works on the lower Salinas River other than a few bank-protection 
works built by the County of Monterey, Southern Pacific Company, 
and individual land owners. The overall effectiveness of the 
protective measures have been greatly reduced because of the 
limited reaches over which the works extend. 



-65- 



There is also an earthflll dam on the San Antonio 
River now under construction and scheduled for completion by 
1966. This dam and reservoir will have a total storage 
capacity of 350,000 acre-feet with 50,000 acre-feet allocated 
to flood control. 

There are two small dams and conservation reservoirs 
on the Carmel River which provide some incidental flood control. 
These two reservoirs are the San Clemente and Los Padres Reser- 
voirs with storage capacity of 3,100 acre-feet and 2,150 acre- 
feet respectively. 

Marin County 

The small federal flood control project on Coyote 
Creek consists of channel improvements in the community of 
Tamalpais Valley. The improvements which were begun in July, 
1964 consist of a concrete-lined rectangular channel section for 
a distance of 2,900 feet and an enlarged earth channel section 
for 4,000 lineal feet. The project, as of January, 1965, is 
approximately 85 percent complete. 

Residential areas along Novato Creek are afforded some 
protection from flooding by existing levees. Stafford Lake, a 
water supply reservoir, also contributes some protection. The 
only other works are local pumps and widening and clearing of 
the lower end of Novato Creek. 



■ 66- 



Water supply reservoirs of the North Marin County 
Water District and Marin Municipal Water Districts contain a 
gross capacity of more than 50,000 acre-feet. These reser- 
voirs, although not utilized specifically for flood control, 
probably have an incidental effect on flood flows in the local 
streams. 

Sonoma County 

In that portion of southern Sonoma County that drains 
into San Pablo Bay, there is only a little more than 1,000 acre- 
feet of storage capacity in local conservation reservoirs. It 
is doubtful that this small amo\int of storage provides much 
incidental flood control to the area. 

Napa County 

The Napa River Watershed Project is currently in the 
initial stages of construction. The watershed work plan covers 
approximately 135,000 acres tributary to the Napa River. Channel 
improvements will run from Oakville Crossroad to Imola Avenue. 
This construction will include channel improvements on Napa River, 
a 3,000 acre-foot flood detention reservoir on Redwood Creek, 
one mile of channel improvements on Tulucay Creek which has been 
completed, and 2.4 miles of channel improvements on Conn Creek. 
A 31,000 acre-foot water conservation reservoir now exists on 
Conn Creek. The watershed work plan was designed for a ten percent 
chance flow in agricultural areas and a one percent chance flow 
in the urban areas. 



-67- 



There are almost 40,000 acre-feet of conservation 
storage capacity In Napa County reservoirs of which 31,000 
Is In Hennessey Reservoir on Conn Creek. Some degree of Inci- 
dental flood control Is obtained from this storage. 

Solano C ounty 

The Green Valley Greek flood control project consists 
of channel realignment and enlargement for 4.3 miles along 
lower Green Valley Creek and Dan V/llson Creek. Channel works 
were constructed on Green Valley Creek from 12,000 feet above 
Pall Road down to Cordelia Slough, near State Highway 40. Con- 
struction on Dan Wilson Creek went from Rockville Road to its 
confluence with Green Valley Creek, a length of 2.6 miles. 
Project construction has recently been completed. 

The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 
operates Chabot Reservoir to provide some flood control regula- 
tion. In addition, there are other channelization features. 
However, the facilities are overtaxed during a heavy storm. 

In the southwestern portion of Solano County there is 
a total of about 20,000 acre-feet of storage capacity which 
probably provides some degree of incidental flood protection. 

Contra Costa County 

The Marsh-Kellogg Watershed Project of the U. S. Soil 
Conservation Service is now under construction involves an area 
of about 116,000 acres and is located in the vicinity of 
Brentwood. The plan Includes construction of detention reser- 
voirs on Marsh Creek and its principal tributaries. Dry and 



-68- 



Deer Creeks, and channel Improvements on Sand Creek and Marsh 
Creek below the junction with Sand Creek. Improvements on 
Kellogg Creek Include a flood water retarding structure and a 
side channel reservoir and diversion. 

Construction has been completed on the Marsh Creek, 
Dry Creek, and Deer Creek floodwater detention dams and the 
Kellogg Creek side channel reservoir and diversion. Construc- 
tion is in progress on 5.2 miles of earth channel improvements 
on lower Marsh Creek. 

Detailed plans are being prepared for channel improve- 
ments on Deer, Dry, Sand, Middle, and Upper Marsh Creeks. The 
design of the Kellogg Creek flood water retarding structure is 
being deferred pending completion of feasibility studies by the 
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation on a large reservoir in the Kellogg 
Creek watershed. 

The Walnut Creek Watershed Project of the U. S. Soil 
Conservation Service, consisting primarily of channel improve- 
ments, covers an area of approximately 72,600 acres. Channel 
Improvements include drop structures, overpours, chutes, linings, 
enlargements, and levees. A total of about 33 miles of channel 
improvements on Grayson, Galindo, San Ramon, and Lafayette Creeks 
(tributaries to Walnut Creek), are included in the project. Work 
is essentially completed at this time. 

Channel construction on the Corps of Engineers' Walnut 
Creek Project is presently underway on Reach 1 of Walnut Creek 
from Arnold Industrial Highway to Sulsun Bay. Work involves 
utility and bridge relocations, together with channel widening 
and levees. 

-69- 



Approximately 1.5 miles of channel Improvements were 
constructed on Rheem Creek from San Pablo Avenue to San Pablo 
Bay. Construction Included 6,300 linear feet of trapezoidal 
earth channel and 1,500 linear feet of rectangular concrete 
channel. Rheem Creek drains approximately 1,400 acres. Channel 
designs were selected to carry flows from 600 second-feet at 
the upstream end, to 800 second-feet at the mouth of the creek. 
Construction was completed in November, 19^0. 

Alameda County 

Local responsibility for flood control within Alameda 
County is lodged with the Alameda Flood Control and Water Con- 
servation District. Since the formation of the District in 19^9 
various special zones have been authorized by the local elector- 
ate and the District presently is directing the planning, con- 
struction, and operation of flood control works in nine active 
zones embracing about 90 percent of the land area of the county. 
Not covered by special districts are the Berkeley-Albany area, the 
Piedmont area, the Alameda area and some East Bay Municipal 
Utility District property, all in the northern portion of the 
county. 

A significant local flood control project is the down- 
stream channel improvement works on San Lorenzo Creek recently 
completed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the 
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The 
lower reach of the federal San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Proj- 
ect extends from San Francisco Bay to Foothill Boulevard and 



-70- 



consists of leveed and riprapped channel extending about 1.4 
miles upstream from the mouth, concrete channel for about 3.9 
miles, and channel clearing and stabilization works for the 
balance of the 7.3 miles of the project. Construction of the 
upper portion of the project from Foothill Boulevard to "B" 
Street has not as yet been authorized. 

Incidental flood control is derived from two small 
reservoirs on the upper reaches of San Lorenzo Creek. San 
Lorenzo Creek Dam, an earthfill structure 75 feet in height 
which can impound about 38O acre-feet of water, and Cull Creek 
Dam, another earthfill structure 55 feet in height which can 
impound 295 acre-feet of water, were recently completed by the 
District as multiple-purpose projects. While no flood control 
reservations are included, both reservoirs are kept at low 
levels during the first part of the stormy season to provide 
flood protection until the time necessary to fill for conserva- 
tion and recreation purposes. The installations also serve as 
debris control facilities. 

A flood detention dam and reservoir with a capacity of 
130 acre-feet has been constructed on Ward Creek by the county 
district, in cooperation with the City of Hayivard and the State 
Division of Highways. 

The District has, since 1954, the date of the first 
flood control construction on San Lorenzo Creek, executed some 
200 contracts and agreements, and has constructed 23 miles of 
concrete-lined channel, 112 miles of earth-lined channel. 



-71- 



45 miles of underground conduit, 52 miles of levees, and 
numerous structures consisting of dikes, tide gates, bridges, 
pumping plants, and culverts. As of July 1, 1964, local 
projects totaling about $75 million have been authorized, 
and expenditures on these projects have been about $25 million. 

In addition to the flood control works provided by, 
and in cooperation with, the District, existing reservoirs of 
East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of San Francisco, the 
East Bay Regional Park District, and others assist in minimiz- 
ing the effects of flood flows in Alameda County resulting from 
high runoff conditions. 

Santa Clara County 

The Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conser- 
vation District is divided into five zones which represent 
groups of watersheds within the County. A needed program for 
improvements through the developed urban areas has essentially 
been completed in the Northwest Zone with the exception of San 
Francisquito Creek. 

In the North Central zone a bond financed program of 
improvements is presently imderway and will be completed in the 
next two years. 

The third zone is the Central Zone which includes the 
watershed of Los Gatos and Canoas Creeks and the Guadalupe River. 
Most of the improvements in this zone are on the Guadalupe River 
downstream from the Civic Center to the vicinity of the town of 



-72- 



Alvlso. Work is proceeding on a pay-as-you-go plan. The City 
of Los Gatos receives some incidental flood protection from 
Lexington Reservoir which is located on Los Gatos Creek. 

The East Zone has several small channel improvement 
projects but is an area in which very little work is undertaken 
annually because of the low income from a maximum tax rate. 

In the South Zone there have been little if any con- 
struction of flood control works, except some local improve- 
ments along the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek. 

San Mateo County 

At the present time there are no existing flood control 
works in San Mateo County with the exception of some locally 
sponsored protective measures such as bank stabilization works 
and levees. In most instances, however, these works have been 
ineffective. Some incidental flood protection is probably 
realized on San Mateo, San Andreas, and Pilarcitos Creeks due 
to reservoirs of the City of San Francisco. 



-73- 



Southern California 
Federal, state, and local agencies in Southern Cali- 
fornia have cooperated to construct many miles of channels and 
levees, and dams to protect residential and agricultural areas 
in Southern California. These existing flood control projects 
provide various degrees of protection to the area. 

Central Coastal Area 



The major existing flood control works In the 
Central Coastal area are the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed 
Project, the Santa Maria River Levee Project, and the Santa 
Ynez River Watershed Project. 

Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Project . This project 
is in San Luis Obispo County starting at a point about two 
miles northeast of the City of San Luis Obispo and flowing 
about 25 miles to the Pacific Ocean near Oceano. The project 
provides for increasing the capacity of Arroyo Grande Creek, 
diversion of Los Berros Creek into Arroyo Grande Creek, control 
of Lopez Creek and Tar Canyon Creek with tidal gates and 
erosion control and stabilization of miles of sand dunes along 
the coast by planting. This project is operated by the San 
Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation 
District. 

Santa Maria River Levee Project . This project is 
located in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties about 



-74- 



60 miles northwest of Santa Barbara. The project includes 
channel clearing and construction of intake levees at head- 
waters of Santa Maria River, construction of a 17-niile levee 
along the left bank from Fuglers Point to 600 feet downstream 
from State Highway Bridge at Guadalupe, construction of a 
five-mile levee along the right bank from 1.25 miles downstream 
from U. S. Highway 101 Bridge to 1.5 miles upstream of Southern 
Pacific Railroad Bridge at Guadalupe, and a 1.8 mile levee 
along Bradley Canyon. The project will provide flood protection 
for the City of Santa Maria and for agricultural lands in the 
Santa Maria Valley. The project is part of a comprehensive 
improvement which includes the multiple-purpose Twitchell Reser- 
voir on the Cuyama River and was completed in 1958 by the 
Bureau of Reclamation. Construction of some parts of the 
project is complete. Construction of the final portions was 
initiated in 196I. This project is operated by the County of 
Santa Barbara. 

Santa Ynez River Watershed Project . This project is 
in Santa Barbara County about 100 miles northwest of Los 
Angeles. 

The watershed is about 900 square miles in area. The 
plan consists of (l) additional fire control and cover improve- 
ment measures on the forest lands and (2) structural measures; 
including grassed waterways, terraces and check dams to reduce 
erosion; cleaning and enlargement of existing channels and 



-75- 



construction of some additional channels, levees, culverts and 
bridges. The project was designed to function in conjunction 
with the existing Cachvima and Gibraltar Reservoirs. This proj- 
ect is operated by the County of Santa Barbara. 

South Coastal Area 

There are major existing flood control works in the 
South Coastal area as follows: 

Ventura River Basin Project . This project is on the 
left bank of the lower Ventura River at Ventiira. The levee is 
2.64 miles in length. It gives protection to the City of 
Ventura against floods on the Ventura River by a rock-revetted 
earthfill levee. The area protected comprises about 1,500 
acres of agricultural and commercial land. The levee was com- 
pleted December, 19^8. This project is operated by the Ventura 
County Flood Control District. 

The Stewart Canyon portion of the project is on a 
tributary of the Ventura River and extends from the mouth of 
Stewart Canyon through the City of Ojai, about l4 miles above 
the mouth of Ventura River. The project provides for construc- 
tion of a debris basin at the mouth of Stewart Canyon and a 
rectangular concrete channel and concrete -covered channel from 
the debris basin through Ojai. The project provides flood 
protection for residential and business districts in Ojai. This 
project is operated by the Ventura County Flood Control District. 



-76- 



Santa Clara River Levee Project . This project Is on 
the lower Santa Clara River in Ventura County. The project 
provides for construction of 4.7 miles of levee along the left 
side of the lower Santa Clara River. It provides flood pro- 
tection to Oxnard Plain, the City of Oxnard and the naval base 
at Port Hueneme. Construction of the Santa Clara River levee 
was completed in April, I96I. 

Santa Clara River Levee Project (Santa Paula Creek 
Channel) is on lower Santa Paula Creek in Ventura Covin ty. The 
project provides for construction of a concrete channel from 
near the mouth of Santa Paula Canyon to the Santa Clara River, 
a distance of approximately three miles. This improvement 
will protect the City of Santa Paula and nearby agricultural 
areas. The Santa Clara River Projects are operated by the 
Ventiira County Flood Control District. 

Calleguas Creek Watershed Project . This project is 
in southeastern Ventura County. There are two independent 
portions of the project. One includes the reach of Calleguas 
Creek between the Highway 101-A bridge and a point 86O feet 
upstream from the State Hospital bridge. The second portion 
includes the Walnut and Gabbert Canyons' watersheds west of 
Moorpark. It protects the City of Moorpark and rich agri- 
cultural lands from flooding and from damage by silt deposit. 
This project is operated by the Ventura Coionty Flood Control 
District. 



-77- 



Los Angeles River Watershed Project . This project. 
In an area of about 150 square miles of the upper Los Angeles 
River basin in the western side of Los Angeles County, pro- 
vides for improvement of runoff and water flow retardation and 
erosion prevention in aid of flood control on the watershed of 
the Los Angeles River. 

Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Ballona Creek 
Project . This project is along the Los Angeles and San Gabriel 
Rivers, the Rio Hondo, and Ballona Creek, and tributaries 
thereof in Los Angeles County. The project provides for con- 
struction of five flood control reservoirs or basins, 29 debris 
basins, 101.3 miles of main channel, 179.^ miles of tributary 
channels, and two jetties. In general, standard project floods 
are used as channel-design floods. 

Kenter Canyon Conduit and Channel . This project is 
in the southwestern part of Los Angeles Covinty. It consists 
principally of a subsurface drain that begins near the inter- 
section of Wilshire Boulevard and McClellan Drive in Los 
Angeles and extends 3.4 miles, for the most part beneath 
Broadway and Colorado Avenues in Santa Monica, to the ocean 
at Pico Boulevard. The improvement prevents serious flood 
damage to valuable residential and business properties in 
Santa Monica. The project was constructed as an emergency 
work-relief project and was completed in 1937. 



-78- 



The foregoing three projects are operated by the Los 
Angeles County Flood Control District. 

Santa Ana River Basin Project . This project Is on the 
Santa Ana River and tributaries and other streams in Riverside 
and San Bernardino Counties. It provides for construction of 
four levee and channel Improvement projects: Devil, East Twin, 
and Warm Creek improvements and Lytle Creek levees, San 
Bernardino County; Riverside levees; Mill Creek levees near 
Redlands, San Bernardino County; and San Jacinto River levees 
and Bautista Creek channel near San Jacinto and Hemet, Cali- 
fornia, Riverside County. The project will provide protection 
for the City of San Bernardino and vicinity and nearby water 
supply wells. It also will provide flood protection to suburban 
areas located in the northwest part of Riverside, most of 
Rubldoux, to Redlands and Mentone, California, and valuable 
citrus orchards in the floodplain. This project is operated 
by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the 
Riverside Covmty Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 

The Santa Ana River Basin (and Orange County) Project 
also is on the Santa Ana River and tributaries and other streams 
in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. It provides 
for construction of seven flood control dams, two flood control 
dams with downstream channels, and related flood control works 
for protection of metropolitan area of Orange County; control 
of floods on San Antonio and Chlno Creeks; and the Lytle and 



-79- 



Cajon Creeks project to provide local flood protection at San 
Bernardino and Colton, California. 

City Creek Levee Project . This project Is about 
5.5 miles east of the City of San Bernardino in San Bernardino 
Coiinty. The proposed project Includes construction of about 
2,550 feet of new leve^, revetting of about 3,400 feet of 
existing levee and excavation of 4,600 feet of channel. This 
project is operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Control 
District. 

Escondldo Creek Watershed Project . This project is 
in the City of Escondldo. The plans provide for construction 
of a 2,325 acre-foot capacity flood prevention and water 
management reservoir and realigning, enlarging, and lining 
existing natural channels through Escondldo. This project will 
be operated by the City of Escondldo. 

Buena Vista Creek Watershed Project . This project is 
on Buena Vista Creek in San Diego County. The plan provides for 
the enlargement, realignment, and lining of portions of Buena 
Vista Creek and its principal tributaries through Vista. Con- 
struction was started in I962. The project will be operated by 
the County of San Diego. 

San Diego and Mission Bay Project . This project is 
on the San Diego River at San Diego. The project provides for 



-80- 



a leveed flood channel 800 feet wide from 0.4 mile above Morena-J 
Boulevard to the ocean (3.0 miles); dredging of entrance 
channel 20 feet deep into Mission Bay from the ocean; and con- 
struction of three stone jetties at entrance and other harbor 
improvements. The channel improvement on the San Diego River 
provides flood protection for the City of San Diego. The 
original flood control project provided for a levee system 
from Presidio Hill eastward for 6,700 feet and a cutoff levee 
of about 900 feet southward from the main levee. The flood 
control project was completed in 1959. This project is 
operated by the City of San Diego. 

San Diego County Flood Hazard Investigation 

A cooperative Investigation was carried on by the 
Department of Water Resources and the County of San Diego in 
order to delineate areas of potential Inundation along portions 
of the San Luis Rey, San Dieguito, San Diego, Sweetwater and 
Otay Rivers in San Diego County. This report was made available 
to the County for their use in flood control project planning 
and proper management of the flood plain. 



-81- 



Colorado Desert Area 

The Tahchevah Creek Project is only the major flood 
control project in the Colorado Desert Area. This project is 
in the City of Palm Springs. It consists of an earthfill 
embankment at the mouth of Tehchevah Canyon creating a deten- 
tion reservoir with a capacity of 900 acre-feet, a concrete- 
lined spillway in the right end of the embankment, a 
1,200-foot stone dike to direct flows from the outlet works, 
a concrete-lined channel from the reservoir to Palm Canyon 
Drive, an underground conduit from Palm Canyon Drive to a point 
about 5^0 feet upstream from the junction of Tahchevah Creek 
and Barlsto Creek, and an xonllned, excavated earth channel 
from the downstream end of the conduit to Baristo Creek. This 
project will be operated by the Riverside County Flood Control 
and Water Conservation District. 

Quail Wash Levee Project . This project is located in 
San Bernardino County about 0.5 mile southeast of the community 
of Joshua Tree and consists of a compacted earthfill levee 
about 2,660 feet long, with an average height of 9.5 feet and 
grouted-stone revetment on the channel side. The project is 
operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 

Lahontan Area 

Presently there are no existing flood control or water- 
shed protection projects in the Southern California portion of 
the Lahontan area. 



-82- 



CHAPTER IV. FLOOD FIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES 

In California there is no single agency responsible 
for flood fighting. Each local, state, or federal agency with 
statutory responsibilities for flood control work cooperate to 
the extent each has capability. The effort of each in Northern 
California are coordinated through the Flood Operation Center 
of the Department of Water Resources. By agreements with the 
Corps of Engineers, with the U. S. Weather Bureau, and with 
the Division of Forestry, the Department has developed plans 
and procedures to utilize the capabilities of these organi- 
zations. 

In Northern" and Central California all requests for 
local flood-fighting assistance are directed to the Department. 
If the resources of the Department are exhausted it will 
channel requests from local agencies to the Corps of Engineers. 
In other areas of the State, these local requests may be made 
directly to the Corps. 

The Corps of Engineers is responsible for securing 
assistance from all other federal agencies such as the Sixth 
Army, 

The California Disaster Office and Its regional 
offices are responsible for coordinating mutual aid during 
natural disasters. The Department of Water Resources cooper- 
ates with the California Disaster Office in this coordinating 
effort. 



-83- 



The flood emergency resources available are broad 
and extensive and are discussed in detail later in this report 
by agencies. The declaration of a flood emergency by the 
Governor makes the entire resources of the State Government 
available to aid designated stricken areas. The Governor 
generally takes this action after local agencies have exhausted 
their resources or it is apparent that they soon will. 

A declaration of national emergency by the President 
releases additional resources for flood fighting and for 
recovery. This makes available the resources of all federal 
agencies to the extent that they are needed. This includes 
the manpower and materials available to the Corps of Engineers 
either through its own resources, or from the Sixth Army, 
Navy, Air Force, or Marines. In addition, the Office of 
Emergency Planning initiates its program under prearranged 
agreements with the California Disaster Office. 

The utilization of the resources of the State and of 
the federal agencies has been planned and organized in an 
orderly fashion so as to insure that when a flood emergency 
develops, the capabilities and resources of related local, 
state, and federal agencies are available to combat the emer- 
gency. The duties of the many involved agencies are described 
more fully in the following paragraphs. 



-84- 



California Department of Water Resources 

In a flood emergency the Department provides services, 
funds, manpower, and equipment and supplies. 

The Department provides flood emergency services 
before, during, and following the flood emergency. These 
services Include: planning, execution, and coordination of 
flood fighting operations of local, state, and federal agen- 
cies through the Flood Operations Center; flood warning and 
river forecasts on the principal streams In Northern and Cen- 
tral California; training In flood fighting techniques for 
local, private, and public groups; and technical assistance In 
setting up flood fighting organizations to be operated by 
local entitles. Also, the State Flood Emergency Operations 
Manual Is prepared and made available to all persons and agen- 
cies who may be Involved In a flood emergency. 

Two sources of funds are available to the Department. 
Prior to the declaration of an emergency by the Governor, and 
under the Department's statutory authority, funds are availa- 
ble for operation of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project 
and for maintenance of portions of that project for which the 
Department has been assigned direct responsibility. Funds also 
are available for providing flood warnings and technical assis- 
tance in flood fighting for other areas of the State in addi- 
tion to the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. Under 
emergency conditions, in addition to the funds appropriated to 



-85- 



the Department for its statutory responsibilities, there is 
available an emergency fund of one million dollars first appro- 
priated by item 446.8 of the Budget Act of 1958. This appro- 
priation is available without regard to fiscal years and when 
expended may be replenished by another appropriation. 

The manpower of the Department Is available for 
assignment to flood fighting duties by the Chief Engineer. 
These personnel provide liaison, technical assistance, flood 
fight supervision, flood fight duty, specific engineering 
knowledge and assistance, or any other duty necessary to avert, 
alleviate, restore or repair damage having a general public or 
state interest, or to protect the health, safety, convenience, 
and welfare of the general public of the State. An important 
part of this staff is the approximately 130 experienced super- 
visors in the operation and maintenance activities and person- 
nel of the Sacramento and Sutter Maintenance Yards. Under 
emergency conditions the Department hires men to assist in 
flood fighting duties. 

U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers 
During flood emergencies the resources of the Corps 
of Engineers Include the resources of the Army, Navy, Marines 
and the Air Force, in addition to the resources of other federal 
agencies. These resources are generally contingent upon the 
declaration of a national emergency, but are available under 
other conditions if it is necessary to protect life and 



-86- 



property. Under flood emergency conditions the Corps has 
resources available pursuant to Public Law 99 for emergency 
repairs to flood control works. In the recent flood the Corps 
acted quickly to restore transportation facilities and water 
supplies and to provide repairs in situations that were 
creating health problems. Cleaning up debris where navigation 
is involved also is a major activity. 

U. S. Weather Bureau 
The U. S. Weather Bureau's primary resource is its 
capability to provide weather and river forecasting service. 
Drawing upon the national and worldwide weather data-gathering 
networks and the weather radar installations, the Weather 
Bureau makes daily and other short-range forecasts and also 
makes thirty-day weather predictions. The Sacramento office 
of the Weather Bureau with the Department of Water Resoiirces, 
through the Federal-State River Forecast Center, provides river 
warnings and forecasts for Central and Northern California. In 
other areas of the State, the Weather Bureau provides these 
services entirely with its own resources. Weather Bureau offices 
are located in Sacramento, Redding, Fresno, Eureka, San Francisco, 
Los Angeles, Bakersfleld, Oakland and Santa Barbara. 



• 87- 



The State Reclamation Board 

The State Reclamation Board Is responsible for 
securing lands, easements and rights-of-way for flood control 
purposes within its Jursidiction. It is responsible for 
giving the necessary assurances to the Federal Government for 
construction of flood control projects. The Board also is 
the agency responsible for enforcing state laws and procedures 
governing the construction, operation and maintenance of 
flood control projects within the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Drainage District; such district is confined to the valley 
floor of the Central Valley. 

The duties and resources of the Reclamation Board 
are not necessarily affected by a flood emergency. However, 
their capabilities are available at the direction of the 
Board and the General Manager. The resources of the Board 
during a flood emergency generally consist of services that 
could be provided by its engineering and legal staffs. 



-88- 



Calif ornia Disast er Of fice 
The California Disaster Office coordinates the efforts 
of local and state agencies and coordinates federal assistance 
to local agencies during periods of flood disaster. This coordi- 
nation Is provided through six regional disaster offices and the 
disaster organizations In each city and county. The resources 
of most local agencies In California have been made available 
to their more distressed neighbors through "Mutual Aid" pacts 
established with the assistance of the Disaster Office. These 
pacts Include provisions for furnishing manpower, equipment and 
supplies. 

Califor nia Division of Fore stry 
The resources of the Division of Forestry during a 
flood emergency consist of manpower, equipment, and communlca 
tlons facilities. This well-trained fire control and fire 
fighting organization adapted quickly and effectively to flood 
fighting tasks. The Division and the Department of Water Resources 
executed an agreement in I96O making available the manpower 
resources of the forestry conservation camps and the equipment 
and communication facilities when not utilized for fire fight- 
ing activities. The manpower consists of about 2,800 Inmates 
of correctional institutions which have been assigned to the 
forestry conservation camps by the Department of Corrections. 
Forestry's equipment available for flood emergency activities 



-89- 



•consists of 97 bulldozers, 300 light trucks, and other miscella- 
neous equipment. The statewide communications facilities of 
Forestry are an available and valuable resource. 

Californ i a National Guard 
Upon declaration of emergency by the Governor the 
entire resources of the California National Guard are available. 
This includes state funds to the extent necessary to activate 
the Guard and to carry out its work. Up to a full strength of 
some 24,000 men can be made available if needed. These men 
are trained in many skills and are dispersed throughout the 
entire State, from Yreka to Calexlco. Present plans call for 
a restructuring of the National Guard, with the result that 
even more manpower and equipment would become available. With 
respect to equipment, thousands of motorized vehicles of all 
types with skilled operators are available, ranging from cross 
coiontry multi-wheel drive trucks and amphibious trucks to 
buses and light passenger cars. Also, the facilities and 
personnel of the Air National Guard, with its 4-englne and 
2-engine aircraft, are available. In this regard, the addition 
of helicopters is planned. Finally, the Guard has a limited 
quantity of supplies, such as emergency rations, gasoline and 
blankets. This agency has the largest aggregate amount of 
manpower and equipment available in an emergency of any state 
agency. 



-90- 



No n- Governmental Organizations Engaged In Public Assistance 

During flood emergencies a number of private welfare 
organizations and associations minister exclusively to the 
Individual and his family needs. These include the American 
Red CrosSj the Salvation Army, church organizations, fraternal 
associations, and other nonpublic agency groups. In flood 
emergencies these organizations play an important part in view 
of the personal nature of their services. In varying degree, 
funds, manpower, and supplies needed for food, clothing and 
shelter are made available. Perhaps, the most important agency 
in this category is the American Red Cross. The Red Cross is 
the official volunteer disaster relief agency of the American 
people. The Red Cross, however, expects the locally constituted 
authority to assume total direction and leadership for the 
disaster situation in the community. 

U. S. Office of Emergency Planning 
Public Law 875j enacted in 1950, authorizes the 
President to furnish federal assistance to state and local 
governments in times of "major disasters". The Office of 
Emergency Planning exercises this authority on behalf of the 
President when he declares a state of disaster. Two important 
resources then become available -- federal funds and coordina- 
tion of the disaster relief functions of all of the federal 
agencies. Federal funds for manpower, equipment and supplies 



-91- 



are made available on a reimbursable basis to local entities. 
Requests for federal assistance are made through the California 
Disaster Office. 

U. S. Armed Forces 
The resources of the armed forces, including the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, consist of manpower, 
equipment and supplies of all kinds which may be used under 
certain conditions for protection of life and property, flood 
fighting, rescue and relief work. They are not available for 
rehabilitation. These resources are available following a 
declaration of a national emergency upon request through the 
Corps of Engineers or the Office of Emergency Planning. 

California Highway Patrol 
The Highway Patrol provides traffic control during 
flood periods. The Patrol assists citizens in the affected 
area and governmental agencies engaged in flood fighting, 
search and rescue, and other relief work. Direct assistance 
to state and federal organizations engaged in flood fighting 
includes the utilization of their communication facilities. 

Local Law Enforcement Agencies 
The county Sheriff's Offices and city Police Depart- 
ments maintain law -and order and provide for the public safety. 
These organizations are very active during flood emergencies 
and their participation is invaluable. The communication 



-92- 



facilities and other resources of these organizations are 
utilized to relay or obtain information. The local law author- 
ity can order evacuations of areas subject to imminent flooding 
or disaster. 

Local Agencies 
An Important basis for flood fighting activities in 
California is the assumption that the flood fighting will begin 
at the local level. The local agency, the county, city, or 
district where the flooding occurs and which has responsibility 
for operation and maintenance of the flood protection facil- 
ities, has the first flood fighting responsibility. These local 
agencies have funds, manpower, equipment and supply resources 
which are brought into action before, during and following 
flood emergencies. When the local resources are exhausted or 
when it is apparent they soon will be the resources of higher 
levels of government are to be made available, generally by 
the declaration of an emergency by the Governor and the 
President . 

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 
A primary contrlbutary of the Bureau of Reclamation 
during a flood emergency is its operation of Reclamation 
reservoirs in accordance with pre-arranged flood control 
criteria and procedures. The Bureau does not generally have 



-93- 



available manpower^ funds or equipment in excess of that 
necessary to carry out its statutory responsibilities except 
when requested to do so under a declaration of national 
emergency. 

California Department of Employment 
This Department's principal service is providing 
assistance in the recruitment of laborers and others needed 
during and after an emergency. The Department has about 100 
field offices in principal towns and cities throughout the 
State . 



-94- 



CHAPTER V. AID PROGRAMS 

State Emergency Flood Relief Law 
The State Emergency Flood Relief Law provides state 
funds to assist local agencies In meeting the cost of repairing 
and restoring storm-damaged essential public real property to 
public use as soon as possible. When the Legislature concludes 
that damages incurred during a specific period were of suffi- 
cient magnitude to warrant state participation in the repair 
and restoration costs, an appropriation is made to the Depart- 
ment of Finance to finance the program. 

Any city, county, or public district sustaining storm 
damage within the period specified by the Legislature is 
eligible for financial assistance under the law. 

Emer gency Powers o f Director of W ater Reso urces 
Section 128 of the Water Code, added in 1956, author- 
izes the Director of the Department of Water Resources to desig- 
nate the existence of an emergency in times of extraordinary 
stress and disaster resulting from storms and floods. On con- 
currence by the Governor, and the availability of funds, the 
Department is authorized to perform any work required or take 
any remedial measures necessary to prevent, to lessen, to repair, 
or to restore damage or destruction to property. 

Public Law 875 
The intent of Congress in enacting Public Law 875 is 
to provide an orderly and continuing means of financial assistance 



-95- 



to state and local governments in costs of measures required 
by them to prevent or alleviate suffering and damage caused by 
major disasters. The provisions of the law become operative 
upon concurrence by the President in the Governor's proclama- 
tion of a disaster area. Generally, federal financial assist- 
ance under this law is limited to protective work and other 
work for the preservation of life and property, and temporary 
replacement of essential facilities of local government. All 
cities, counties, public districts, and other units which 
qualify as legal government entitles within the geographic area 
of the disaster are considered eligible local agencies. 

Federal Aid Highway Act 
Federal Emergency Funds - Federal Aid Highway Act 
provides federal funds to augment the funds of states and their 
subdivisions for the cost of emergency opening and permanent 
restoration of roads and bridges on federal aid highway systems 
damaged or destroyed during disaster conditions arising from 
natural disturbances of extraordinary intensity over a wide area. 
Federal funds become available upon concurrence of the 
Secretary of Commerce in the Governor's emergency proclamation 
of flood conditions caused by storms or other natural disturb- 
ance. 

Any state, city, or county having roads or bridges on 
the Federal Aid Highway System which have sustained storm damage 
during a proclaimed state of emergency is eligible for federal 
assistance under the Act. 



-96- 



Public Law 99 
Federal Public Law 99 authorizes the expenditure of 
emergency fionds by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers In flood 
emergency preparation. In flood fighting and rescue operations, 
or in the repair or restoration of any flood control work 
threatened or destroyed by flood. Flood control operations are 
undertaken at the request of responsible local authorities when 
available local and state resources are inadequate. 

Small Business Administration Loan 
The Small Business Administration provides financial 
assistance to disaster victims in the form of direct loans in 
participation with banks or other lending institutions to restore 
or rehabilitate property damaged or destroyed as a result of 
natural disaster. Assistance also is available to small busi- 
nesses for economic injury due to drought or excessive rainfall. 

American National Red Cross 
The American National Red Cross carries on a system of 
relief in mitigating the sufferings caused by pestilence, famine, 
fire, flood, and other disasters. Red Cross aid is not dependent 
upon a declaration of a disaster, nor does it duplicate relief 
provided by other agencies. Its major responsibilities are in 
the early stages of disaster emergencies, during which time its 
activities are closely coordinated with federal, state, and local 
governmental agencies to plan relief operations. 



-97- 



Any individual or family in need is entitled to 
assistance from the American National Red Cross. 

A more detailed explanation of the foregoing program 
are available in the Department of Water Resources' report 
entitled "State and Federal Flood Relief and Disaster Laws". 



-98- 



CHAPTER VI. FLOOD DAMAGE AND PROBLEMS 

Despite the existence of many flood control works in 
California, as described in Chapter II, the unprecedented flood 
of December, 1964 demonstrated conclusively that we still have a 
long way to go in securing adequate protection against floods, 
both in the construction of additional flood control facilities 
and in the effective management of lands along the flood plains 
of our rivers. 

Damage from the Christmas 1964 floods was the worst 
in the North Coastal area where the storm was the heaviest and 
where flood control works are the fewest. For example, nearly 
two feet of precipitation fell on the Eel River watershed, send- 
ing new record flows rampaging through the basin with only a 
pitifully inadequate levee system in the Eel River Delta to 
provide protection to the local residents. 

A similar catastrophe in the Sacramento Valley was 
avoided because of the comprehensive system of reservoirs, 
levees, and bypasses to control and contain the flows resulting 
from the flood. However, levees were put to a severe test by 
the extended duration of high flows, and extensive repairs and 
maintenance will be necessary. This is particularly true in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where a combination of high flows, 
high tides, and winds acting against levees founded on organic 
soils and subject to sinking caused the near loss of several 



-99- 



islands and will necessitate major reconstruction of a number 
of levees. 

While the recent storm did not cause flood in Central 
and Southern California, nowhere in the State can the overall 
flood control facilities be considered adequate. Flood problems 
are evident in varying degrees throughout the State. 

In this chapter is a discussion of flood problems and 
flood damage in the various areas of the State followed by a 
discussion of certain general problems. This chapter describes 
those problems as manifested by the Christmas 1964 and other 
recent floods. 

North Coastal Area 

During heavy floods, such as those that occurred 
during the Christmas Season of 1964, the North Coastal Area 
characteristically sustains great damage in relation to its 
total economy. There are several reasons for this. In the 
first place, precipitation in California is characteristically 
the greatest in the North Coastal region and the virtual absence 
of snowpack to attenuate the discharges, coupled with the 
relatively steep topography of the area results in rapid runoff 
and accumulation of flood flows as they course to the ocean 
within a few hours, or, at the most, two or three days after 
the precipitation falls. 

Secondly, the topography of the region confines the 
habitable areas to those relatively narrow bands of flat lands 



-100- 



along the channels where people have historically settled and 
developed a substantial portion of the economy of the region. 
The same forces that created those flat plains upon which the 
people live — namely floods — periodically go on a rampage and 
destroy virtually everything within their path. 

Thirdly, the topography and particularly the geology 
of the region does not favor the construction of dams at a 
reasonable cost. This problem is compounded by the fact that 
the economy of the region generally is such that the present 
benefits to be realized from a flood control project are not 
sufficient to justify the r elatively high expenditures. 

Finally, all attempts at intensive Investigation of 
the flood problems and of the feasibility of providing flood 
damage relief to the North Coastal area as a region have been 
thwarted by the obvious high cost of structures required and 
the low value of comparative benefits. Studies conducted to 
date have been limited both aerially and in scope. Flood 
control projects, constructed as a result of those studies, are 
few and the damages that they prevent, while important in the 
particular area they protect, are small in relation to the 
total economy of the region. 

Smith and Klamath River Basins 

Beginning in the most northerly areas, the Smith and 
the Klamath River Basins have no flood control facilities or 
flood control features of conservation facilities that would 



-101- 



provide material protection to the downstream areas where flood 
damage occurs. On the Smith River, the Christmas flood of 1964 
spread out into various distributaries, flooding adjacent towns 
and causing damage to Innumerable ranches and ranch buildings. 
The towns of Gasque and Fort Dick and the general flood plain 
north of Crescent City suffered road as well as public utility 
damage , 

The Klamath River flooded in the Lower Klamath Lake 
area, Hornbrook, Selad Valley, Happy Camp, Somesbar, Orleans, 
Welchepec, Martins Perry, Pecwan, Klamath Glen, Klamath, and 
Requa. More than I50 homes were destroyed along the Klamath 
River, representing probably 50 percent of the total residences 
In the area. The communities of Klamath and Klamath Glen 
suffered the complete loss of all homes. Losses and damage on 
the Klamath River system extended to Etna in the Scott River 
Basin and to the Salmon River, a tributary. Tributary streams 
created local flooding problems in Shasta and Butte Valley and 
in the Tule Lake area in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties. Extensive 
damage also occurred along the Trinity River, particularly at 
Hoopa and Willow Creek. Flood stages within the lower Klamath 
Basin ranged from 10 to 12 feet above the 1955 flood level. 

The operation of Ruth Dam and Reservoir for water 
conservation reduced the flood stages in the Mad River Basin to 
about one foot below the 1955 flood level. While the dam suf- 
fered damage, it was not rendered inoperative. However, Mad 



-102- 



River, Maple Creek, Corbel, Blue Lake, and the Arcata-Samoa 
area suffered damage. 

Eel River Basin 

Except for a levee project in the Lower Eel River 
Delta, there are no flood control facilities of significance 
within the Eel River Basin. As is the case in most of the 
North Coastal Area, the communities are concentrated along the 
flat lands comprising the flood plain of the river. Despite 
the fact that many people, and, in fact, major portions of some 
communities, moved up to higher land as a result of the dev- 
astating 1955 flood, the unprecedented Christmas 1964 floods, 
with stages of many feet higher than the former flood, wreaked 
much greater havoc and caused much greater destruction than 
did the former floods. A combination of flood control facili- 
ties, in conjunction with prudent flood plain management and 
broad scope area planning, holds the only answer to the future 
protection of the Eel River Basin from great flood damage. 

Damage in the Eel River Basin occurred at Wllllts, 
Dos Rlos, Island Mountain, Alder Point, Fort Seward, Myers Plat, 
Garberville, Weott, Shlvely, Scotia, Rio Dell Bridgevllle, 
Alton, Fortuna, Fernbridge, Ferndale, and Loleta. The Christmas 
1964 floods ranged from 2 to 20 feet above the previous 1955 
record high water. Roads and railroads and public utilities 
accounted for approximately $42,000,000 damage in the Eel River 



-103- 



Basin within Humboldt and Mendocino Counties. The private 
damage In the two counties amounted to some $26,000,000. The 
town of V/eott was approximately 75 percent destroyed, and Shlvely 
was completely destroyed, as were Pepperwood and Holmes. Busi- 
ness and manufacturing activities v/ere disrupted. 

The Sandy Prairie Levee Project at the junction of 
the Van Duzen and Eel Rivers near Fortuna was severely damaged. 
Because of extremely high flood stages in the Eel River, the 
simultaneous peak from the Van Duzen was prevented from enter- 
ing the Eel River through the leveed channel. Waters from the 
Van Duzen were thus forced behind the Sandy Prairie levees and 
washed out stretches that could not resist flowing water on the 
back side. Extensive damage resulted to areas that depended on 
this project for flood protection. 

The entire Eel River Delta suffered from the rapid 
rise of flood waters, the high stages, and the long period of 
inundation that accompanied the flood. Damage was compounded 
by the force of fast-flowing water that ripped through river 
banks, highway and railroad embankments, and public and private 
structures. Millions of board feet of both sav;ed lumber and 
cold-decked logs were carried away with the flood water. This 
along with the debris of fallen trees wiped out many buildings 
In the flood plain. 

Dairy and livestock operations in the Eel River 
Delta were particularly hard hit by extensive loss of cattle 



-104- 



trapped in flooded areas. The rapidly rising water and the 
confusion in flood evacuation information hindered many from 
successfully moving their stock. 

Russ i an River Basin 

The flood control situation in the Russian River 
Basin is slightly better than that in the remainder of the 
North Coastal area and promises to improve in the near future 
with the construction of the Warm Springs Dam and Reservoir on 
Dry Creek, a major tributary to the Russian. Coyote Valley 
Dam and Reservoir on the East Fork of the Russian reduced the 
flood stages substantially during the Christmas 1964 floods. 
However, no one Individual tributary to the Russian contributes 
a high percentage of the total flow in the river at Guerneville 
and considerably more storage will be needed on the system be- 
fore the downstream communities can be assured full relief 
from flood damage. 

The Russian River Basin is susceptible to damage to 
residential and agricultural areas in Uklah and Hopland, as 
well as business establishments in Hopland. The community of 
Cloverdale is subject to flood damage from Big Sulphur Creek. 
The main channel of the Russian River has been cleared and 
improved from Calpella downstream, but heavy storms continue 



-105- 



to cause considerable damage. This emphasizes the point that 
channel Improvement alone does not provide sufficient protection -• 
flood control storage on the several main tributaries Is neces- 
sary. 

The flooding southeasterly of Guernevllle In the 
Laguna-De Santa Rosa area Is caused principally by backwater 
from the Russian River with the Laguna acting as a ponding area. 
About 30 homes were flooded In Talmage In the Christmas 1964 
flood from overflow of Mill Creek. 

Mendocino Coastal Streams 

Most of the developed land In the coastal area Is 
located on the broad terraces along the Pacific Coastline. 
Streams draining the area have generally cut deeply into these 
terraces and do not overflow into local communities. A major 
exception is Anderson Valley and State Highway Route 128 along 
the Navarro River. Here the highway and valley lands are 
subject to flooding by the Navarro River and its tributaries. 

In relation to other areas of the State, little de- 
mand for flood control or water development facilities has been 
expressed on the direct coastal streams. There is a general 
need however for a broad scope study in the area. In addition 
to possible flood control and v;ater conservation, the study 
should investigate the potential for recreation and fisheries 
enhancement . 



-106- 



Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

Tremendous progress has been made in the Sacramento 
Valley toward the protection of life and property from flood 
damage. Shasta Dam and the Sacramento River Flood Control 
Project afford a high degree of protection. However, there 
remain flood problems which require additional reservoir sto- 
rage and channel improvement for their correction or elimination. 

Upper Sacramento Valley 

The Upper Sacramento River, betv/een Shasta and Red 
Bluff, receives the essentially uncontrolled inflow of a number 
of tributaries which, during floods, cause damaging stages in 
the river between Shasta and the head of the Sacramento River 
Bypass system. During the recent flood, damages were incurred 
in the communities of Anderson, Red Bluff, Los Mollnos, Corning, 
Orland, Hamilton City, Willows, Chico, Butte City, Princeton, 
Richfield, and Colusa. These floods were generally of the same 
magnitude as the Christmas 1955 flood. 

The west side tributaries to the Sacramento, between 
Shasta Dam and Red Bluff, contribute heavily during flood 
periods. They cause local damage to land and developments 
along the channels of these streams and add to high stages in 
the Sacramento River. 

Extensive bank erosion, damage to state, county and 
private stream crossings, and damage to structures occurred 



-107- 



along many streams that enter the Sacramento River from both the 
east and west sides from Red Bluff to about the latitude of Chlco, 
Thomes Creek caused serious damage when levees In the vicinity 
of Richfield failed to contain the large volume of flood water. 
At the heights of the flood highway travel v;as completely 
stopped on both U.S. 99W at Thomes Creek and U.S. 99E north of 
Vina from water from Mill Creek and Antelope Creek. 

Irrigation structures suffered damage where diversion 
works were seriously eroded or where uncontrolled overflows 
entered canals and washed out the banks. The fish ladder and 
left abutment of the Stanford-Vlna Diversion Dam on Deer Creek 
will need extensive repair as will the canal of the Anderson- 
Cottonwood Irrigation District. 

Sacramento River Flood Control Project 

The Christmas 1964 flood gave the Sacramento River 
Flood Control Project a severe test and disclosed the major 
problems which are current erosion, rather than inadequate 
channel capacity. The system carried amounts of water equal 
to the 1955 flood with greater efficiency and fewer trouble 
spots because of the high degree of channel and levee mainte- 
nance that has been exercised since that disasterous flood. 
The most serious erosion occurred on the right bank of the 
Feather River about one mile downstream from the Gridley Bridge. 
Here the river changed its course, eroding away the berm and 



-108- 



cut deeply into the levee section. Some 20,000 tons of rock 
were required on a 1,200-foot reach of this levee and berm to 
control the erosion and reinforce the levee. 

Extensive berm and bank erosion also occurred on Butte 
Creek over a six-mile reach extending south from new U.S. High- 
way 99 Bridge to the Southern Pacific Railroad. Also, much log 
debris accumulated on the bridges in this area. Emergency re- 
pair necessitated the placement of about 10,000 tons of rock. 

A survey of bank erosion is now being made on the west 
side of the Sacramento River north of Colusa and on the opposite 
(east) side of the river. The exact extent of damages cannot be 
determined until the water level recedes. However, it appears 
that several hundred feet of rock revetment will be required, 
at a cost of about $250,000. Encroachment in the channel has 
caused a problem in the City of Colusa. These encroachments 
should be removed and the levee should be reinforced with rock. 

Butte Basin experienced overflows in areas where un- 
authorized levees were removed during 1964, There were no 
reports of serious flooding or damage as the result of this 
natural overflow into Butte Basin channels. 

Additional problems in the project consist of silting 
in the Cherokee Canal below the confluence of Cottonwood Creek 
and damage to bridges over the borrow pits of the bypass. 

There also are growing problems on relatively small 
streams and channels in areas that are being urbanized. Several 



-109- 



of these, such as Morrison Creek, are In the growing metropolitan 
area of Sacramento. Adequate planning Is required now If large 
future costs are to be avoided. 

Sierra Streams 

During the Christmas 1964 floods, the Yuba River set 
a new record of peak discharge. There are essentially no major 
storage reservoirs on this river. Fortunately, sufficient con- 
trol was provided on the Feather River ty having completed the 
construction of Orovllle Reservoir to an elevation of 605 feet, 
which reduced the peak Inflow to the reservoir by more than 
100,000 second feet. The possible tremendous damage which could 
have occurred by the concurrent peaking of both the Feather and 
Yuba Rivers at their confluence at Marysvllle was avoided by 
control of the Feather provided by Orovllle Dam and Reservoir 
and by levee Improvement and channel clearing that was done 
following the 1955 flood. There Is an urgert need for sufficient 
flood control storage to control the Yuba River. The proposed 
Marysvllle Reservoir would provide this. 

Spanish and Ind.ian Creeks of the Upper Feather River 
Basin have experienced serious flooding during periods of high 
runoff of the Feather River. During recent years, a major 



•110- 



bridge over Spanish Creek was destroyed. Furthermore, there 
was danger of inundation and damage to the Airport at Quincy. 
As Indian and American Valleys are developed more intensively, 
damage from flooding can "be expected to increase. There is 
a need to develop plans for providing flood control of these 
streams. 

Incidental flood control on the Bear River is 
provided by operation of Camp Far V/est and Combie Reservoirs. 
Rollins Reservoir, currently under construction, will provide 
additional incidental flood control. There is a need for 
the Corps of Engineers to complete its current studies to 
develop a comprehensive plan for flood control of the Bear 
River. 

While Folsom Reservoir controlled the flow in the 
American River through the Sacramento area, the flood storage 
reservation in that reservoir was very nearly fully committed 
during the recent flood. This "touch and go" situation 
strongly emphasized the need to expedite the authorization 
and construction of Auburn Reservoir to provide additional 
storage on the American River system to supplement the capacity 
of Folsom to more fully regulate flood flows on the American. 
An interim measure of increasing the flood control reservation 
also should be considered. 



-Ill- 



The Christmas 1964 storm was not as Intense on the 
Cosumnes River Basin as on the American, Yuba and Feather River 
Basins to the north. However, this fortunate situation for the 
Cosumnes River Basin cannot always be expected to occur in the 
future. The Nashville site should be developed to provide ade- 
quate flood control for the Cosumnes River. 

Sacramento River Seepage Problem 

In many areas, the water level in the Sacramento River, 
particularly during flood flows, remains at a substantially 
higher elevation than the lands adjacent to the levee, causing 
water to seep through and under the levees with resultant 
damage. With seepage varying directly with the water stage, 
the persistence of high flows caused considerable damage to 
both agricultural and municipal economies. Typical agricultural 
damages are : 

1. Inability to plant a given crop at the 
prescribed time, 

2. Total or partial loss of established stands. 

3. Inability to follow the first crop with a 
second crop. 

4. Decreased yields and/or loss of perennial 
plants, including trees. 



-112- 



Seepage damage in municipal areas can be measured by 
the additional Investment to assure that water levels are main- 
tained below the foundation of structures, the cost of repair 
of roads, and extra pumping and maintenance costs to return the 
water to the river. 

A study is currently in progress by the Department to 
evaluate average annual damages caused by seepage from the 
Feather and Sacramento Rivers to consider possible methods of 
seepage alleviation. The investigation also has as an objec- 
tive the evaluation of the economics of various methods of 
providing such alleviation. This study should be accelerated. 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

Flood problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
fall under two categories. These are the natural and man-made 
problems that create or add to the severity of flooding and the 
physical problems of flood fighting. The first group includes: 

1. The physical problem of constructing and 
maintaining levees on peat soils, particularly in 
old channel sections where the peat soil is quite 
deep, resulting in unstable sections of existing 
levees. 

2. The necessity for relatively high levee 
sections on the landward side where much of the 
land is below sea level. 

3. Levee subsidence and subsidence of land pro- 
tected by the levees as a result of compaction and 
consolidation and stripping of peat soils. 

4. High tides sometimes occurlng during flood 
periods which restricts outflow of water from the 
Delta, creating high water stages. 



-113- 



5. High southerly and westerly winds during 

high flow periods which cause additional backup of 
flood flows and creates the danger of wave erosion 
of levee sections. 

6, Control of floods by upstream works v/hich 
effectively extends the duration of relatively high 
flows, resulting in a greater probability of high 
tides and winds occurring simultaneously with flood 
stages, thereby lengthening the probable time high 
stages are in contact with the levees. 

The second problem in the Delta demonstrated by the 
recent floods concerns the problem of access to levees. In 
most cases, the impassable condition of the levees during wet 
weather permits access only by boat or by walking. Furthermore, 
sand for emergency levee repairs is generally not available 
within the Delta area. Therefore, peat or other unsatisfactory 
material sometimes must be used to fill sandbags. Also, in- 
creasing the height of the levee with sandbags or other con- 
struction materials during flood periods often results in 
additional subsidence. 

In the past, levee design has been a major problem 
in that there have been many conflicting ideas as to what is 
necessary to provide a stable levee section. 

In some areas, the recent flood demonstrated that 
there is need for improved communication between the State and 
local entitles. With a number of people involved in flood 
fighting activities who are not normally involved in this 
field, there were some who did not have adequate knowledge of 
the responsibilities and authority of the various entities 
concerned. 



-114- 



In the Delta, the problem was again evident that 
project levees were endangered by areas protected by nonproject 
levees. This problem occurs where project levees protect the 
main channels and nonproject levees extend around various other 
Islands. 

San Joaquin Valley 

Flood problems in the San Joaquin Valley are generally 
limited to the channel of the San Joaquin River betv/een its 
major tributaries and the Delta, Certain levee problems and 
minor flooding in the uncompleted portions of the lower San 
Joaquin River Flood Control Project were noted during the 
December flood. 

The flood problems of the San Joaquin Valley are of 
only an interim nature, as the existing flood control projects 
and those in the construction, implementation, and planning 
stages will essentially complete the degree of flood protection 
needed in the valley within the limitations of economic 
Justification. 

Central Coastal and San Francisco Bay Area 
While considerable conservation and flood control 
works have been constructed in this area, both by the U. S. 
Army Corps of Engineers and local public agencies, flood pro- 
blems still prevail on a number of streams. These problems 
are discussed herein, by county. 



-115- 



Santa Cruz County 

Flood problems in the Santa Cruz County area are 
handled primarily by local agencies with the U. S. Corps of 
Engineers and the U. S. Weather Bureau providing valuable 
assistance. 

The channel capacity of Soquel Creek is not adequate 
to safely pass flood waters without overflowing of the stream 
banks. Flood problems, resulting in damage to agricultural and 
residental property and to highways, roads, and bridges, are 
further aggravated by log jams that form in the channel ob- 
structing the flow. Two bridges and a sharp bend in the channel 
further contribute to the flood problems. High velocity flows 
cause bank erosion and overflows, scour topsoil, deposit gravel 
and debris over a wide area. These flood problems occur pri- 
marily in the lower three miles of the stream, where the flood 
plain area is estimated to cover about I70 acres. Flood crests 
usually occur about 4 hours after the occurrence of intense 
rainfall. 

Flood crests on the San Lorenzo River are reached 
within a few hours after the occurrence of Intense rainfall. 
A serious problem is the occurrence of considerable debris, 
which causes jams in the river channel and higher flood stages. 
Associated vjith this problem is access to debris jams over 
private property in order to clear the channel. It is sometimes 
difficult to determine whether a specific jam actually presents 
a threat to life and property. 



-116- 



Though the City of Santa Cruz is protected, upstream 
flood problems along San Lorenzo River have occurred at Paradise 
Park, Gold Gulch, Pelt on, Ben Lomond, Boulder Creek, and 
Brookdale. 

Flooding along Scott Creek has occurred during times 
of heavy precipitation. Flood crests occur very soon after 
the occurrence of intense rainfall. Areas subject to flooding 
are primarily agricultural. Flooding causes major damage to 
and loss of highly valued crops and some buildings. 

Flood problems along the Pajaro River arise from a 
low degree of protection now afforded by the existing levees, 
and the high velocities of flood flows which cause severe bank 
erosion and levee damage. This has resulted in levee failure 
in past years and is a constant threat to the City of Watsonville 
and the Pajaro Valley area. 

In the southernmost end of Santa Clara County, re- 
current flooding is a threat to the intensively cultivated lands 
along the Pajaro River, where the flood plains of Llagas and 
Carnadero Creeks merge with the bottom land lake area, extending 
westward from San Felipe Lake to the vicinity of Sargent. This 
area is flooded by discharge of tributaries to Tequisquito Slough, 
as well as Llagas and Carnadero Creeks. In addition, the banks 
of the San Benito River are subject to severe erosion during 
periods of high runoff, such as that which occurred during the 
December 1955 flood. 



-117- 



Monterey County 

Flood Problems arise principally from periodic damage 
to agricultural lands and utilities on the Salinas River flood 
plain belov; San Ardo, caused both by direct inundation and by 
channel bank erosion with consequent encroachment onto adjacent 
lands. Erosion damage begins when the flov; in the Salinas River 
at Spreckels exceeds 15,000 cubic feet per second. Inundation 
will occur when the flow at Spreckels exceeds 20,000 cfs. 

On the average, some damage is expected to occur once 
every two years v;ith the present flood control system. V/hen no 
major floods occur, the flood channels become constricted by 
growth of willows and deposits of silt. These constrictions in- 
crease the potential damage of small floods, causing a constant 
threat of inundation of the City of Salinas and other low lying 
urban areas. 

There is also some danger of flooding on the Carmel 
River. The lower river has only a few privately-built levees 
to control flooding. There is always a danger of flooding along 
the lower river as silt is deposited at its mouth, backing up 
the water when the flow increases and causing localized flooding. 

Marin County 

Along Corte Madera Creek damaging floods have occurred 
in almost every flood year. About 1,500 acres of residential, 
commercial, and public development, having a total value of 
$45,000,000, is subject to flooding. 



-118- 



Richardson Bay, an arm of the San Francisco Bay, Is 
surrounded by a highly developed suburban area which is also 
subject to recurring flood damage. Major storms in 1955 re- 
sulted in damage estimated to be in excess of $170,000. 

The community of Tamalpals Valley, located about 10 
miles north of San Francisco, is subject to recurring flood 
damage from Coyote Creek. And, continued residential develop- 
ment in the area of Novato Creek is causing increasingly serious 
flooding problems, 

Sonoma County 

Flood problems in the Sonoma Creek Basin arise pri- 
marily from inadequate channel sections on creeks, unstable 
levee sections adjacent to the Sonoma Creek channel, and in- 
adequate openings under highway and railroad bridges. Tidal 
action in Sonoma Creek can aggravate the problem. Flooding in 
the lower reaches is nearly an annual occurrence. The City of 
Sonoma and Tubbs Island suffered damage from high flows on 
Nathanson Creek and Tolay Creek, respectively, during the flood of 
December, 1955. Several homes were inundated in Sonoma. 

Napa County 

The flood plain in the Napa River v;atershed extends 
from 2 miles north of Calistoga to State Highway 48 near Vallejo. 
This encompasses the towns of Calistoga, the eastern part of St. 
Helena, the City of Napa, and coastal areas. Floods, such as 



-119- 



those which occurred during 1955, 1958, and I963, have Inundated 
up to 12,000 acres and caused damages ranging from $350,000 to 
$670,000. The majority of these damages occurred to commercial. 
Industrial, and agricultural lands and roads and bridges. The 
most severe damages occurred In the vicinity of the City of Napa. 

Solano County 

In general, small streams cause extensive flooding of 
agricultural and urban lands. Local reservoirs and channel 
facilities are not sized to cope with even moderately heavy 
floods. 

Overflow from a number of creeks which flow through 
the Falrfield-Sulsun area and drain into Suisun Bay cause some 
damage to residential and agricultural areas. These floods are 
caused primarily by the Inadequate channel facilities of local 
creeks and drainage canals, which are being further taxed by 
increased runoff, resulting from urbanization. Suisun City is 
also subject to occasional tidal flooding. 

Contra Costa County 

Flood damage in Contra Costa County can be expected 
to occur with each heavy rainstorm. Although the Contra Costa 
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District conducts 
an active flood control program, which includes several federal 
flood control projects now under construction, urban develop- 
ment of the area continues to proceed at a rapid pace and further 
aggravates the flood problem. 



-120- 



Heavy property damages were suffered In 1955 and I958 
by the flooding of Las Trampas Creek. It has been estimated 
that approximately 15 surface acres were lost through stream 
bank erosion In this channel. Other problems include excessive 
bank erosion on Las Trampas Creek and local flooding onto agri- 
cultural lands, subdivision developments, utilities, and roads. 

In 1958, one of the major flood periods for the area. 
Las Trampas and San Ramon Creeks overflowed into the main street 
of Walnut Creek. A county bridge was completely washed out on 
Marsh Creek, and almost every creek in the area overflowed its 
banks. 

Historic overbank flooding from Pine Creek has been 
intensified in recent years by encroachment of business and 
residential development. Severe damage has occurred to agri- 
cultural and urban land and improvements. Flooding occurred 
in the City of Concord from Pine Creek in December, 1955. 

Alhambra Creek flows through the City of Martinez and 
causes serious flood damage to residences and commercial 
establishment s . 

Approximately 125 acres are subject to flooding from 
Pinole Creek, of which 70 acres are subject to severe damages. 
Flooding in the business district and a residential subdivision 
in Pinole occurred in 1955 and 1958. 

The community of Rodeo is subject to recurring flood 
damage from Rodeo Creek. Flooding of residences and business 
establishments occurred in 1955 and 1958. Completion of the 



-121- 



freeway connecting other Bay Area cities has accelerated resi- 
dential and commerlcal development. 

Alameda County 

Historic floods of the past have Inundated relatively 
large areas of Livermore Valley and southern Alameda County. 
The principal areas subject to this flooding have been agricul- 
tural lands along the lower reaches of San Lorenzo and Alameda 
Creeks and In the western portion of Livermore Valley. 

In 1963 the Oakland-Emeryville area, which suffered 
extensive damage in October I962, authorized the formation of 
Zone 12. During 1964 local projects, costing about $21,500,000 
were authorized. Zone 13, in the vicinity of San Leandro, was 
also formed in I963 and local projects costing about $1,900,000 
were authorized that same year. The District has requested the 
Corps of Engineers to undertake flood control projects in Arroyo 
Vie jo, and on Temescal and San Leandro Creeks in these zones. 

In the October I962 storm, partially completed Cull 
Canyon Dam was damaged, as was the University of California's 
Botanical Gardens in Strawberry Canyon. Suffering and loss of 
property by private residents was also large. 

Although no damage was reported in Alameda County as 
a result of the flood conditions in December, 1964, a number 
of significant problems remain unsolved. There is a need for 
local authorized projects to be constructed and federal plans 



-122- 



developed in the newly formed Zones 12 and 13 for the protection 
of life and property in the Oakland-San Leandro area. The upper 
reach of the San Lorenzo Flood Control Project must be author- 
ized. Drainage at Oakland's Lake Merritt must be improved. 
Channel improvement on Alameda Creek must push steadily forward. 
Flood control protection for Livermore Valley is urgently needed, 
Construction of Del Valle Dam and Reservoir will assist in 
providing flood control protection for Livermore Valley, but 
the 1961 conclusion of the Corps of Engineers that channel 
improvements in Livermore Valley should not be authorized imme- 
diately, has left a decided gap in the necessary works. 

Santa Clara County 

In the Northwest Zone, San Prancisqulto Creek and the 
foothill areas above the present channel improvement on the 
other creeks are the major areas where future flood problems 
will probably occur. The North Central Zone likewise does not 
have any future flooding problems except in the foothill areas. 
In the Central Zone there remains at Alviso a channel alignment 
project and the closing of the levees, through this area, to 
the tidal channel. Until levees have been completed in this 
area, particularly where the railroad crosses the river, the 
City of Alviso can continue to expect flooding during periods 
of high tides and high runoff. 

Another area of potential flooding problems occurs 
through the City of San Jose, where the Guadalupe River channel 



-123- 



needs Improvement. In the East Zone, along Silver Creek and 
several other flat areas, there may be flood problems until 
Improvements have been completed. 

In the South Zone, Miller Slough in the City of Gilroy 
and Llagas Creek will continue to cause problems until the 
Llagas Creek Project can be completed. 

San Mateo County 

San Mateo County is hydrologically divided into two 
units, streams draining to the Pacific Ocean and streams drain- 
ing into San Francisco Bay. Steep gradients in the area create 
floods characterized by rapid peaking and almost as rapid reces- 
sion. Floods are of short duration, seldom being out of their 
banks more than a day or two. Damage on the coast side is 
principally agricultural in nature, including damage to crops 
aid erosion of farmland. On the bayside, the major flood problem 
is due to the rapid expansion of residential and commercial 
development within the flood plains of the creek. Increased 
urbanization on the bayside and the expected growth in the 
coastal area indicates a need for flood control programs. 

Southern California 
From the standpoint of flood problems. Southern 
California can generally be described as consisting of a series 
of valleys and lowlands bounded by steep hills and mountains 
which, for the most part, are barren of vegetation with cover 



-124- 



limited principally to small trees and brush of various types. 
Due to steepness of terrain and limited ground cover in upper 
watersheds the many areas experience large runoff, heavy erosion, 
and debris production to the valleys as a result of wind, 
extreme temperature changes, and intense or continued rainfall. 

The highly flammable types of cover in upper water- 
sheds, coupled with increased populations, have aggravated the 
flood problem by greatly increasing the probability of fires 
of man-made origin, thereby reducing the vegetative cover and 
increasing the probability of erosion, flood, sediment, and 
debris damage to property. 

Originally, development of Southern California was 
primarily agricultural. The rich valleys and lowlands of 
Southern California have become susceptible to floods and debris 
damage. Along with continuous expansion of agricultural develop- 
ment, there has been a continuous change in land use from agri- 
culture to urban development. Inasmuch as the areas most 
susceptible to urban development are located in flatlands below 
the mouths of canyons that bound the valley areas, many urban 
areas are in danger of floods. Because of the rapid urbanization 
flood control problems often arise which must be solved immediately. 
Such problems develop usually after a severe burn in the upper 
watershed or become evident after a severe storm. 

Flood control developments often lag behind urban 
development. This, however, does not mean that damage cannot 



-125- 



be prevented or curtailed. Urban development is taking place 
at a rapid rate. There is need for continuous studies, not 
only of known flood control problems, but also of potential 
flood problems resulting from either change in land use or in 
the hydrological factors contributing to runoff. There is need 
for physical works of improvement to keep pace with urban 
development; however, this is not always economically possible. 
During the interim, there is need for floodplain management in 
order to control development in the hazardous areas and keep 
flood damages to a minimum. 

Temporary flood damage prevention works are needed 
after disastrous fires which occur frequently in Southern 
California. An example of this problem is in the Glendale, 
Burbank, and Santa Barbara areas where recent fires destroyed 
the watershed vegetation, resulting in mudslide problems after 
a high-intensity rain in November, 1964. Fortunately, in the 
Santa Barbara area, the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with 
the county, have straightened and dredged the most critical 
channels, removed many substandard bridges, and constructed 
debris basins prior to the rainy season to minimize flood 
damage . 

A step toward alleviation of flood problems in Southern 
California lies in comprehensive planning and management of 
floodplain lands that are subject to recurrent flooding by over- 
flow of streams. Further steps are essential to encourage local 



-126- 



agencies to control use of floodplalns In order to prevent loss 
of life and minimize damage to property from floods. In order 
to assist local agencies, the State acts as coordinator between 
the local agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers In the 
conduct, by the Corps, of floodplaln Information studies under 
Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of I96O. These information 
studies provide a factual basis in planning the use of flood- 
plains and In preparing zoning ordinances. In addition, the 
State can assist by making studies and information available to 
local agencies in support of their zoning activities, such as 
the Department's Bulletin No. 112, "San Diego County Flood 
Hazard Investigation". 

Summary of Flood Damages 

Information on areas Inundated and economic damages 
during the floods since November, 1950 is summarized by major 
areas in Table III. 

It will also be noted that Table III does not Include 
Southern California. While a number of local flash floods have 
caused local damage, there has been no major flood in Southern 
California since 19^1. 



-127- 



H 






8 



a 



b1 

r-1 
O 



en M 
VD H 



^ o 

CD O 

I 

OJ 
VD 

CO 

• 0) 

■p ^ 

o o 

o < 



CO m 

ON TO 



S 






• (D 
(U CJ 



LTN H 
Lf\ H 
CA O 



S 



O W 

CA ro 



o5 
I 

M 
• (U 

> u 

^ < 






O 

o 
o 

o 
o 
o 

H 



o 
o 

o 

UA 
OJ 



o 
o 

o 

On 
0\ 



o 
o 
o 

o 

CO 






o 
o 
o 

o 
o 
o 

OJ 

o 
o 

u-\ 
OJ 

m 

o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



o 

LTN 

OJ 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

LTN 
H 



o 

o 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



o 

o 

00 
en 



o 

o 
o 

o 
o 

CO 
ON 



O 
O 
O 

o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

o 

LTN 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



o 
o 

vo 

OJ 
LTN 



o 
o 
o 

o 

-^ 
OJ 

H 



o 
o 

OJ 

en 

H 

CO 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

r-i 

*\ 

VD 

r-i 



OJ 
LTN 

H 
OJ 



o 

o 
o 



>1 >1 



o 
o 

o 

LTN 

vn 

OJ 



o 
o 
o 

o 

ON 

VD 
OJ 



03 








-P 
o 


^ 






o 


% 1 


H 4J 






O H 


03 VI 


Xi 


U "a 


h) r-l 


■p 


cj 


-P o 


u 


o > 


s > 


a o 


p 


03 


c3 


(U 


t^ 


CQ 


CQ 


u 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



o 
o 

VO 



o 
o 
o 

o 

CO 
m 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

VO 
VD 



o 
o 
m 

en 

CO 



ON 



>1 



•H 






O 

o 
o 

»\ 

O 
O 
O 

CO 
H 
C\J 

o 



en 

o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

1>- 



o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

CM 
O 

CO 

en 



o 


^ 


o 


o 


OJ 


-u 


1 *\ 


vv 


1 OJ 


H 


c— 





o 
o 
o 

o 

c— 
1>- 

•\ 
VD 
VO 



031 
O 
O 

LIA 

O 

CO 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


1 •v 


»» 


1 o 


o 


o 


o 


J- 


VO 



>1 



03 

o 

Eh 



^ 



cd o 



S< 



^ 



•H "v 


•> 


0) 


<u 


U 


b>i 


^ 


,Q 


m 0) 


M 


O 


O 


(D Q, 


CD 


P> 


-P 


u a 


;J 


O 


o 


o (u 


Jh 


o 


o 


cd > 


rQ 






o 


(U 


rt 


Q) 


o s 


F>H 


•H 


"3 


o 






^ 


O 1 


I 


W 


H 


•\ 




<U 


o 


LTN !>2 


>. 


h 


s 


t--H 


H 


O 


•H 


d 


d 


03 





O o 



o 

CO O 



■P 
O 



o 

•^ to 

O 0) 



-128- 



CHAPTER VII. THE CALIFORNIA FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM--I965 

It is apparent from the disastrous results of the 
December, 1964 flood and from the review contained in this 
report that construction of flood control works in California 
must be accelerated and that other actions need to be taken 
and certain studies need to be made. Actions to accomplish 
these steps constitute a flood control program for California. 
The "California Flood Control Program — I965", is set forth in 
this chapter. Using this report as a basis, the California 
Flood Control Program should be revised and up-dated each year. 

The program set forth in this report will increase 
our protection against floods, will increase our capability to 
combat floods, will coordinate and strengthen the flood control 
activities of all participating agencies, will expand considera- 
tion of flood control in studies of multiple-purpose projects, 
and will provide a guide for all agencies in providing much 
needed flood control protection and flood damage prevention. 

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first 
part summarizes actions which are needed to provide increased 
control of floods by reservoirs and levee systems. It Includes 
information on (l) current multiple-purpose project studies 
requiring special attention, (2) authorized projects, (3) projects 
investigated but not yet authorized, and (4) basin-wide investi- 
gations which are needed. The second part cf the chapter 
discusses the many actions and programs that are needed to 



-129- 



supplement and to make more effective the operation of flood 
control projects. The second part includes such subjects as 

(1) utilization and coordination of flood fighting resources, 

(2) flood forecast and flood warning systems, and (3) expanded 
approach to flood control, and (4) flood plain management. 

Where specific recommendations are made they are 
emphasized by being underlined. 

Needed Projects and Project Studies 

Current Multiple- Purpose Project Studies 
Requiring Special Attention 

1. Marysvllle Reservoir . This planned project is 
urgently needed for flood control on the Yuba 
River. Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers. 
Specific recommendation ; Authorize and accelerate 
to construction as quickly as possible. 

2. Auburn Reservoir , This planned project is urgently 
needed for added flood control of the American 
River. Responsible agency: Bureau of Reclamation. 
Specific recommendation ; Authorize and accelerate 
to construction as quickly as possible. 

3. Middle Fork Eel River Reservoirs . Spencer and Dos 
Rios Reservoirs on Middle Pork Eel River have been 
authorized as features of the California Water 
Resources Development System. Studies in progress 
are directed toward sizing of the reservoirs and 
selection of the export conveyance route. Responsi- 
ble agencies : Department of Water Resources and 
Corps of Engineers. Specific recommendation : Both 
agencies should accelerate the current feasibility 
level investigations of these reservoirs and together 
they should develop a specific plan for flood control 
operation of the reservoirs. Consideration should be 
given to possible early construction of these reser- 
voirs to provide flood control and in such a manner 
that they could perform their Intended future pur- 
poses of providing water for export and for 
recreation. 



-130- 



4. English Ridge Reservoir . This -reservoir would be 
an eventual feature of a state-federal project 

If water Is routed through Clear Lake, or an in- 
dependent federal or local project to serve Lake 
County, the North Bay Counties, and the Central 
Valley Project. Responsible agency: Bureau of 
Reclamation. Specific recommendation : That the 
Bureau of Reclamation initiate immediate studies 
at the feasibility level, comparable to those of 
the Department of Water Resources and Corps of 
Engineers at Dos Rlos and Spencer, to evaluate the 
flood control features of English Ridge Reservoir 
and to develop a plan for early construction, 

5. Butler Valley Project , This project on the Mad 
River, which would provide water supplies to the 
Eureka-Arcata area, offers one of the most favor- 
able possibilities in the North Coastal area for 
early construction in the Interests of flood con- 
trol. Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers. 
Specific recommendation ; Feasibility studies be 
initiated immediately for this project. 

6. Knights Valley Project . This project on Pranz 
Creek and Maacama Creek in the Russian River Basin 
has been studied by the Corps of Engineers and 
recommended for authorization. The project is 
being studied at the feasibility level by the 
Bureau of Reclamation. Responsible agency: Federal 
Government. Specific recommendation : Complete 
feasibility-level investigation and proceed to early 
construction. 

7. Paskenta-Newvllle Project . A forthcoming report by 
the Department of Water Resources on the Upper 
Sacramento River Basin Investigation, as well as 
the published reports on the North Coastal Investi- 
gation, point out this project as favorable for 
early construction. It could provide complete 
flood control on Thomes Creek, in addition to the 
primary purposes of water conservation, recreation, 
and fishery enhancement. Responsible agency: 
Department of Water Resources, Specific Recommendation : 
The Department of Water Resources, or the Department 

of Water Resources in cooperation with the federal 
agencies, should expedite the feasibility-level in- 
vestigation looking toward early construction. 



-131- 



8, Upper Sacramento River Tributary Reservoirs 

Hulen Reservoir on Cottonwood Creek , 
pipplngvat Reservoir on Cottonwood~Creek , 
Deer Creek Meadows Reservoir on Deer and 

Mill Creeks, anH' 
Mlllvllle Reservoir on Cow Creek 

These reservoirs have been found at reconnais- 
sance level studies to be economically Justified for 
multiple-purpose construction either as features of 
the California Water Development System or as locally 
constructed projects with state participation under 
the Davls-Grunsky program. They contain elements 
of flood control and would provide flood benefits to 
the downstream channels and would reduce flood peaks 
on the Sacramento River, Responsible agencies: 
Department of Water Resources and Corps of Engineers, 
Specific recommendation : The Department of Water 
Resources should expedite Its program of feasibility 
Investigations on these reservoirs looking toward 
early construction. The Corps of Engineers should 
participate cooperatively to provide technical assis- 
tance on flood control analyses. 

Projects Already Authorized 

Following are listed by geographic area flood control 
projects that are authorized. For these projects the general 
recommendation is that the Congress or the Legislature provide 
immediate new or additional funding and that construction be 
accelerated to the greatest possible extent. Specific recom- 
mendations are made for each project. 

North Coast 



1, Redwood Creek . Preconstructlon planning is in 
progress, Authorized by P.L, 87-874, 
October 23, 1962, Responsible agency: Corps 
of Engineers. Specific recommendation : 
Reexamine in the light of new hydrologlc data, 
replan if necessary, and accelerate construction. 



-132- 



2, Warm Springs Project on Russian River . Pre- 
constructlon planning is in progress and agreements 
have recently been reached with Sonoma County Flood 
Control District relative to a water supply contract, 
Authorized by P.L. 87-874, October 23, 1962. 
Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers. Specific 
recommendation ; Accelerate construction. 

3, Sandy Prairie Levee . This completed project was 
partially destroyed in the recent flood, which 
exceeded the design flood. Authorized by 

P.L. 85-500, July 3, 1958. Responsible agency: 
Corps of Engineers. Specific recommendation : 
Make immediate repair s\ Reexamine in light of 
new hydrologic data, replan and reauthorize for 
construction as necessary. 



Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

1. Oroville Dam and Reservoir . Construction is pro- 
ceeding under the tightest possible schedule. 
Federal contribution toward construction is author- 
ized by P.L. 85-500, July 3, 1958. Responsible 
agency: Department of Water Resources. Specific 
recommendation ; Maintain construction schedule and 
urge the Congress to make appropriations to keep 
the federal contribution current. 

2. New Bui lards Bar . Project will be advertised in 
June, 1965. Nonfederal authorization yet; a 
study by the Corps of Engineers is underway to 
determine whether flood control storage should be 
included in the project. Responsible agency: 

Yuba County Water Agency. Specific recommendation ; 
Encourage early construction. 

3. Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Old 
Project j~ Construction is 99 percent complete 
but final completion has been delayed somewhat 
because of levee stripping controversy. Last 
contract is scheduled for spring, I965. Ini- 
tially authorized by Flood Control Act of 1917, 
and modified by Act of 1928, 1937, and 19^1. 
Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers and State 
Reclamation Board. Specific recommendation : 
Maintain construction schedule. 

4. Sacramento River Major and Minor Tributaries . 
Construction of active portions is about 



-133- 



67 percent complete. Thomes and Antelope Creeks 
are being restudled with project funds. Federally 
authorized by P.L. 534, jBth Congress, 2d Session, 
as amended by P.L. 516 of May I7, 1950. Responsi- 
ble agency: Corps of Engineers and State Reclamation 
Board. Specific recommendation ; Accelerate comple- 
tion of active units and accelerate restudy of Thomes 
and Antelope Creek Units. 

5. Sacramento River Bank Protection . Construction is- 
about 12 percent complete. Authorized by P.L. 86-645 
of July l4, i960. Responsible agency: Corps of 
Engineers and State Reclamation Board. Specific 
recommendation : Accelerate construction and seek 
additional funding . 

6 . Sacramento River, Chico Landing to Red Bluff . V/ork 
in Tehama County started June, 1953 and was completed 
March 1964. V/ork in Butte and Glenn Counties is 
"inactive" due to failure of local agencies to estab- 
lish flood plain zoning. Authorized by P.L. 85-50O, 
July 3, 1958. Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers 
and State Reclamation Board. Specific recommendation: 
Urge adoption of necessary zoning ordinances to 
assure early completion. 

7. Duck Creek . Construction is presently scheduled 
to start in spring of I965. Authorized by 
Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as 
amended by P.L. 685, 84th Congress, 2d Session. 
Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers. Specific 
recommendation : Construct as scheduled, 

8. Mormon Slough . Preconstruction planning was 
started in fiscal year 1964. Authorized by 

P.L. 87-874, October 23, I962. Responsible agency: 
Corps of Engineers and State Reclamation Board. 
Specific recommendation ; Accelerate planning and 
construction. 

9. Ulatis Creek . Construction is about 13 percent 
complete. Authorized under P.L. 566, 83d Congress, 
2d Session, Approved for construction August I7, 
1961. Responsible agency; U. S. Soil Conservation 
Service. Specific recommendation : Construct as 
scheduled. 

10. Adobe Creek . Construction is about 85 percent 

complete. Authorized under P.L. 566, 83d Congress, 
2d Session. Approved for construction by USDA 



-134- 



July 31, 1958. Responsible agency: U. S. Soil 
Conservation Service, Specific recommendation ; 
Accelerate to completion. 

11. Tabl e Mountain ( Iron Canyon ) . The project is 
classified "deferred'' becaus'e of lack of agree- 
ment among local interests and federal and state 
agencies concerning fisheries and values of lands 
to be inundated. It is recommended the project 
remain in deferred status pending improvement in 
economic justification. This project was ini- 
tially authorized by P.L. 534, 78th Congress, 2d 
Session, December 22, 19^4. Responsible agencies: 
Department of Water Resources and Corps of 
Engineers. Specific recommendation : Investigate 
transfer of flood control aspects of proposed 

Iron Canyon Project to reservoir projects on Sacra- 
mento River tributaries, and improvement of 
Sacramento River Flood Control Project. 

12, Butte Basin. The Butte Basin Bypass Project was 
authorized by the 19^4 Flood Control Act and in 
modified form was adopted by the State Reclamation 
Board in 1964 as a master plan for Butte Basin to 
maintain the integrity of the Sacramento River Flood 
Control Project. Responsible agencies: Corps of 
Engineers and Department of Water Resources. 
Specific recommendation : Accelerate studies to 
determine long-range features and priorities for 
construction. 



Central Coastal and Bay Area 

1. Alameda Creek . Channel improvement work is sched- 
uled to begin in I965. Authorized by P.L. 87-874, 
October 23, 1962. Design of Del Valle Dam, by the 
State, is continuing viith construction scheduled 

to begin in late 1965. Responsible agencies: Corps 
of Engineers and Department of Water Resources. 
Specific recommendation : Construct as scheduled. 

2. Walnut Creek . Channel Improvement work is about 
five percent complete. Authorized by P.L. 86-645, 
July l4, i960. Responsible agency: Corps of 
Engineers. Specific recommendation : Continue 
construction on schedule. 

3. Pinole Creek and Rodeo Creek . Channel improvement 
work is scheduled for construction in I965. 



-135- 



Authorized under authority of Section 205 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1948 as amended by Section 205 
of the 1962 Flood Control Act. Responsible agency: 
Corps of Engineers. Specific recommendation : Begin 
construction as scheduled, 

4, Corte Madera Creek . Preconstructlon planning is 

in progress^ Authorized by P.L. 87-874, October 23, 
1962. Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers, 
Specific recommendation : Additional funds be Imme- 
dlately provided for completion of planning and 
design, leading to early construction, 

5. Napa River . Construction of the Tulucay Creek 
portion of the project is complete and detail 
plans for construction of Redwood Creek Dam are 
in preparation. Authorized under P,L. 566, 83d 
Congress, 2d Session, Approved for construction 
June 27, 1962, Responsible agency: U, S, Soil 
Conservation Service. Specific recommendation : 
Accelerate construction. 



San Joaquin Valley 

1. Bear Creek (San Joaquin County) . Construction is 
about 5y percent complete. Final construction con- 
tract is scheduled for this spring. Authorized by 
P.L, 534, 78th Congress, 2d Session, December 22, 
1944, as part of the Calaveras River and Littlejohn 
Creek and tributaries project. Responsible agency: 
Corps of Engineers and State Reclamation Board, 
Specific recommendation : Maintain construction 
schedule. 

2. New Mel ones Reservoir . Preconstructlon planning 
is in progress. Authorized by P.L. 534, 78th 
Congress, 2d Se&sion, December 22, 1944, as modi- 
fied by P.L, 87-874 of October 23, 1962, Respon- 
sible agency: Corps of Engineers, Specific 
recommendation : Accelerate design and construction, 

3. New Don Pedro Reservoir , Planning is in progress 
by local Interests, Construction is dependent on 
court resolution of fishery problems. Federal con- 
tribution toward flood control portion of projects 
authorized by P.L, 534, 78th Congress, 2d Session. 
Responsible agency: Turlock and Modesto Irrigation 
Districts. Specific recommendation : Urge early 
resolution of controversy so that construction can 
proceed. 



-136- 



^. New Exchequer Reservoir . Construction started June 
1964 and is proceeding under a tight schedule. 
Federal contribution toward flood control portion 
of project authorized by P.L. 86-645, July l4, i960. 
Responsible agency: Merced Irrigation District. 
Specific recommendation : Maintain construction 
schedule, " 

5. Buchanan Reservoir . Preconstruction planning was 
initiated in January, 1964. Authorized by P.L. 
87-874, October 23, 1962. Responsible agency: Corps 
of Engineers. Specific recommendation ; Accelerate 
design and construction. 

6. Hidden Reservoir, Preconstruction planning was 
initiated in January, 1964. Authorized by P.L. 
87-874, October 23, 1962. Responsible agency: 
Corps of Engineers. Specific recommendation ; 
Accelerate design and construction. 

7. Lower San Joaquin Flood Control Project Above Mouth 
of Merced Rlver T Construction is scheduled for 
completion in 1966. Authorized by P.L. 534, 78th 
Congress, 2d Session, December 22, 1944, as modified 
by P.L. 327, 84th Congress, 1st Session. Responsible 
agency: State Reclamation Board. Specific recom - 
mendation : Maintajin construction schedule. 

8. San Joaquin River below Merced River . Construction 
of active portions is about bH percent complete. 
There are two inactive units that are delayed until 
local interests accept maintenance responsibility. 
Authorized by P.L. 534, 78th Congress, 2d Session, 
December 22, 1944. Responsible agency: Corps of 
Engineers and State Reclamation Board. Specific 
recommendation : Urge resolution of controversy and 
accelerate completion of the project. 

9. Kings River Channel Improvement . Preconstruction 
planning for the levee and channel improvement has 
been completed. Construct i-on -will be scheduled 

as soon as required rights-of-way assurances are 
provided by local interests. Authorized by P.L. 
534, 78th Congress, 2d Session, December 22, 1944. 
Responsible agency; Corps of Engineers. Specific 
recommendation: Accelerate construction. 



-137- 



Southern California 

1. Los Angeles County Drainage Area . Construction Is 
continuing. Authorized by various flood control 
acts between I936 and i960, inclusive. The basic 
comprehensive plan was authorized by the 19^1 Flood 
Control Act, Responsible agency: Corps of 
Engineers. Specific recommendation ; Maintain 
current construction schedule. 

2. West Fork Dam, Mojave River . Preconstruction plan- 
nlng Is in progress. Authorized by P.L. 86-645, 
July l4, i960. Responsible agency: Corps of 
Engineers. Specific recommendation : Initiate con- 
struction as soon as possible. 

3. Escondido Creek Watershed . Detailed plans are being 
prepared with construction to begin In the summer 

of 1965. Authorized under P.L. 566, 83d Congress, 
2d Session. Responsible agency: U. S. Soil Con- 
servation Service. Specific recommendation : 
Accelerate construction, 

^. Santa Paula Creek . Authorized by Flood Control Act 
of 194«, as amended. Responsible agency: Corps af 
Engineers. Specific recommendation ; Obtain plan- 
ning funds. ~ ' 

5. Banning Levee on White Water River . Project is 

being designed and early construction is anticipated. 
Authorized by Section 205 of Flood Control Act of 
19^8, as amended. Responsible agency; Corps of 
Engineers, Specific recommendation ; Proceed to 
early construction. ' 

Projects Investigated But Not Yet Authorized 

The following list includes some of the projects which 
have reached the final planning stage and have been reviewed by 
the State. It is recommended that these projects, which have 
been found to be economically justified and financially feasible 
and which will provide significant flood control benefits, be 
authorized by the Congress or the Legislature and that construction 



-138- 



funds be provided as soon as possible. Specific recommendations 
also are made for each project, 

Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

1, Marysvllle Reservoir , This planned project Is 
urgently needed for flood control on the Yuba 
River. Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers 
Specific recommendation ; Authorize and accelerate 
to construction as quickly as possible. 

2, Auburn Reservoir , This planned project Is urgently 
needed for added flood control of the American 
River. Responsible agency: Bureau of Reclamation, 
Specific recommendation ; Authorize and accelerate 
to construction as quickly as possible. 

3, Cosumnes River Division. This planned project, 
particularly Nashville Reservoir, Is urgently 
needed for flood control on the Cosumnes River. 
Responsible agency: Bureau of Reclamation. Specific 
recommendation : Authorize and accelerate to con- 
structlon as quickly as possible. 

4, Lakeport Reservoir . This planned project Is needed 
for flood control of Scott Creek above Clear Lake. 
Responsible agency; Corps of Engineers. Specific 
recommendation : Expedite authorization an^! 
construction. 

5, Wilson Valley Reservoir . This planned project Is 
urgently needed for flood control of Cache Creek. 
Responsible agency; Local agency with State and/or 
federal participation or federal agency. Specific 
recommendation ; Expedite authorization anH 
construction. 

North Coast 

1. Eel River Delta Levee Project , This project Is 
urgently needed; It would provide effective flood 
control to an area which experienced some of the 
worst devastation in the 1964 floods. Responsible 
agency; Corps of Engineers. Specific recommendation ; 
State and local Interests give full support to Imme- 
diate congressional authorization. 



-139- 



Central Coast 

1. Sonoma Creek Project . This planned channel improve- 
ment project Is being finalized for submittal to 
Congress. Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers, 
Specific recommendation ; Expedite authorization and 
construction, 

2, Napa River Project . This planned project provides for 
channel Improvements along the lower reach of the 
Napa River, If authorized, this project will replace 
the lower portion of the presently authorized Napa 
River Watershed Project of the U, S, Soil Conserva- 
tion Service, Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers, 
Specific recommendation : Expedite authorization and 
construction. 



■Southern California 

1. Lytle and Warm Creeks . This project will provide 
for flood control along Lytle and Warm Creeks In 
the cities of San Bernardino County and Colton. 
The proposed plan provides for the construction of 
a concrete-lined channel along the V/est Branch of 
Lytle Creek, and continuous levees along Warm Creek, 
and Includes a channel along a portion of the Santa 
Ana River. Responsible agency: U. S. Soil Conserva- 
tion Service. Specific recommendation : Expedite 
authorization and construction. 

2. Beardsley Watershed . This planned project in 
Ventura County will provide improvement of exist- 
ing channels and upgrading of three debris basins 
for sediment control and flood protection to agri- 
cultural land and the town of Nyland Acres, 
Responsible agency: U, S, Soil Conservation 
Service, Specific recommendation : Expedite final 
approval and construction, 

3. Revolon Watershed : This planned Soil Conservation 
Project in Ventura County will provide enlargement 
and realignment of channels to provide flood pro- 
tection for agricultural lands near the City of 
Oxnard, Responsible agency: U, S, Soil Conserva- 
tion Service. Specific reccmimendation : Expedite 
final approval and construction. 

4. San Gabriel River Watershed (Western Area ), This 
planned Soil Conservation Service Project will 



-140- 



provide construction of numerous check dams, three 
debris basins and channels, and control of sediment 
and flood runoff In the San Gabriel Mountains. 
Responsible agency: U. S, Soil Conservation 
Service. Specific recommendation : Expedite final 
approval and construction, 

5. San Diego River Mission Valley : This planned 
project will provide channel improvements on the 
San Diego River in Mission Valley. It will con- 
sist of concrete lining on the main stream and 

on a portion of three of its principal tributaries. 
Responsible agency: Corps of Engineers. Specific 
recommendation : Expedite authorization and 
construction, 

6. Tijuana River Basin (international Project) . This 
planned project will provide construction of a 
concrete-lined channel on a new alignment of the 
Lower Tijuana River, The project will reduce the 
flood threat created by the improvement of the upper 
portion of the river by Mexico. Responsible agencies: 
International Boundary Commission and Corps of 
Engineers. Since justification of this project is 
generally based on substantial land enhancement 
benefits resulting from flood control, it would be 
appropriate for local interests to assume a share 

of the necessary right-of-way costs. On this basis 

the project should be accelerated to early construction, 

Comprehensive Basin-Wide Investigations 

In addition to the many individual project investiga- 
tions which have been made or are proposed, there is an urgent 
need for several comprehensive basin-wide studies, particularly 
in Northern and Central California. These studies should take 
into account several factors that have developed in recent 
years. For example, the effects of the December, 1964 storm 
require a new evaluation of flood control criteria. Further, 
the roles of recreation, and of the preservation and possible 
enhancement of natural resources, have been undergoing major 
conceptual changes almost overnight. 



-141- 



Also, the Federal Governrnfint, through ftie Area Re- 
development Act, the Accelerated Public Works Act and other 
programs complementary thereto. Is making financial assistance 
and other aids available to designated counties in California. 
Many of these counties are located in Northern and Central 
California. This factor, together with the fact that in certain 
river basins, particularly in the North Coastal area, local 
economies could profit substantially not only from construction 
projects, but also from the industrial and recreational develop- 
ments which will follow such construction, should have very 
favorable impacts on such economies. In such situations, an 
increased need and justification for flood damage abatement pro- 
grams would follow. A list of needed basin-wide investigations 
includes: 

1. Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San Joaauln Delta . 
The Corps of Engineers presently has authorization, 
but only limited funds, for a comprdiensive re- 
evaluation of the entire basin. Important sub- 
basins or areas which need further study, in the 
light of recent developments, include (a) the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; (b) the Sacramento 
River Basin above the mouth of the Feather River, 
including Stony Creek, Thomes Creek, Cottonwood 
Creek, Cow Creek, Antelope Creek, Mill Creek, Deer 
Creek, Chlco Creek, Butte Creek, and Butte Basin; 

(c) Cache Creek Basin, including Wilson Valley 
Reservoir and Scotts Creek and Kelseyvllle Reservoirs; 

(d) Upper Put ah Creek Basin; (e) Bear River; and 

(f ) Upper Feather River Basin including Spanish and 
Indian Creeks and North Pork Feather River above 
Lake Almanor. The entire Yuba River Basin should 
also be restudied, particularly Marysville Reservoir; 
in addition, in the event the Yuba County Water 
Agency is unsuccessful in securing satisfactory bids 
for its project on the Yuba, the project should be 
reexamined in the light of possible state or federal 



-142- 



construction or financial aid. It Is recomir.ended 
that adequate funds be secured for acceleration 
and completion of the Corps of Engineers' authorized 
basln-v;lde Investigation In Northern California 
streams, and the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta and that these studies Include con- 
sideration of flood plain management. 

2, San Joaquin Valley , The Corps of Engineers presntly 
has authorization, but only limited funds, for a 
comprehensive reevaluatlon of the entire San Joaquin 
Valley. This is scheduled as a five or six-year 
Investigation. The study should be kept on schedule. 
It Is recommended that adequate funds be provided 
for completion, as scheduled by the Corps of 
Engineers, of the authorized Investigation In the 
San Joaquin Valley and that these studies Include 
consideration of flood plain management. 

3. Eel River Basin . The Department of Water Resources, 
the Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation 
all have Investigations In progress on the Eel River, 
Although comprehensive to a significant degree, the 
foremost objective of these studies Is to develop 
plans for water development for both local use and 
for the export of surplus water to water-deficient 
areas of the State, It is recommended that these 
studies be reexamined on a comprehensive basin-wide 
basis in the light of the recent flood events with 

an eye to bolstering the economy of the region, and 
giving special attention to the possibilities of 
early construction and to flood plain management. 

4, Klamath River Basin . With the exception of the 
Trinity River, which will be treated separately, 
there appears to be no possibility of developing 
a practicable plan for flood control on the lower 
Klamath River, until major conservation reservoirs 
are needed for water supply. It is recommended 
that flood control be given strong consideration as 
a purpose in any studies of the Klamath River Basin 
by any agency. It is further recommended that flood 
plain management studies be Initiated in this basin. 

5. Trinity River Basin . As with the Eel River Basin, 
the Trinity River Basin is being studied by both the 
Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of 
Reclamation, primarily for water development. In 
view of new hydrologic data, flood control should be 
more than an incidental purpose. It is recommended 



-143- 



that consideration be given to flood control as a 
primary purpose In Investigations presently being 
conducted, 

6. Mad River Basin . This basin is being studied by 
the Department of Water Resources and the Corps of 
Engineers, primarily for additional water supplies. 
It Is recommended that flood control be considered 
a primary purpose In Investigations presently being 
conducted and that attention be given to flood plain 
management . 

7. Smith River Basin . The Corps of Engineers is 
authorized to study the Smith River Basin, but has 
had no funds made available. Flood plain manage- 
ment and channel improvement appear to be important 
in the solution to this problem. It is recommended 
that early funding be provided to the Corps of 
Engineers for this authorized study and that atten- 
tion be given to flood plain management. 

8. Russian River Basin . Construction of the authorized 
Warm Springs Reservoir on Dry Creek will provide 
substantial new flood protection in the Russian River 
Basin. Nonetheless, in view of ■ new hydrologic data, 
it is recommended that the entire basin be restudied 
by the Corps of Engineers . 

9. Minor Northern California Basin s. Numerous flood 
problems occur in several sub-basins including Lost 
River-Tule Lake, Butte Valley, Shasta Valley, Scott 
Valley, South Pork Pit River, Susan River, and the 
North Pork of the Peather River above Lake Almanor. 

It is recommended that the Department of Water Resources 
and the Corps of Engineers undertake, at a reconnais- 
sance level, reviews of flood control projects in 
connection with multiple-purpose water developments for 
these areas. The timing of these studies should be 
coordinated with possible water projects for other 
needs and to take advantage of possible broadened 
economic concepts. 



-144- 



Needed Actions and Other Studies 
There are several Important subjects^ In addition to 
specific projects, which have a significant bearing on the 
solution of flood problems. Some of these subjects have been 
considered before, some may be new; but this review of 
California's flood problems indicates that their consideration 
is urgent. 

Utilization and Coordination of Flood Fighting Resources 

It is apparent not only from reading Chapter IV, 
"Flood Fight Resources and Responsibilities", but also from 
the experiences of recent floods that almost unlimited resources 
are available in flood emergencies. The problem is to assure 
that these resources are utilized in the most expeditious and 
timely manner and to the fullest extent possible. The v;ay 
to do this is to assure coordination among the various agencies, 
making certain that the responsibilities and communication 
channels of each are fully understood. The Flood Control Center 
in Sacramento has operated in such a satisfactory manner during 
past floods that it has set a pattern for similar centers else- 
where. It is recommended that the Department of V/ater Resources, 
the Corps of Engineers, the Weather Bureau, and the California 
Disaster Office establish a task force VJith the objective of 
studying and setting up and staffing three other area flood 
control centers; one In or near Eureka, the second in the San 
Francisco Bay area, and the third in the Los Angeles area. The 



-145- 



centers in the North Coast area and the Bay area should be 
established Immediately. 

F 

These centers not only would serve to receive all 
per'tinent data but also, and more important, v;ould be the 
central points of operation for all agencies, the central 
points for dissemination of all information, and the central 
points for coordination of all activities. 

A necessary requirement for the flood control center 
in the North Coast is a reliable radio network to cover and to 
extend out of the North Coast to other areas in order to pro- 
vide communication between flood operation centers and between 
the flood operation center and areas of flood fight emergency 
and flood fight activity. This radio network, and the other 
governmental communication facilities available during flood 
emergencies, should have a flexibility to integrate and coor- 
dinate separate smaller systems. A similar network connected 
to the Flood Control Center in Sacramento also is needed in the 
Upper Sacramento River Valley. Such networks are recommended . 
It also is recommended that consideration be given to the use 
of closed circuit television, both for communication between 
flood centers, and for dissemination of public Information. 

Flood Forecast and Flood VJarning Systems 

The experience of the December, 1964 storm and 
flood sharply pointed up the need to strengthen and improve 
the data gathering and flood warning systems. The data and 



-146- 



communication networks and flood warning systems in the Central 
Valley need improvement and expansion. There are serious 
deficiencies in the North Coast and the Central Coast. 

The topography of these two areas and their proximity 
to the Pacific Ocean raise special problems in forecasting 
flood flows. In the flat plain areas of the Central United 
States flood stages can be forecast from measured daily rain- 
fall amounts or even from measurements of runoff of tributary 
streams. In California's North Coast and Central Coast areas, 
however, the time is so short between the first appearance of 
rain and the following flood crest that special data gathering 
and forecasting techniques are necessary. To gather data 
quickly, rainfall stations are installed in remote mountain 
locations to automatically telemeter rainfall amounts to the 
forecast center on an hourly or more frequent basis. 

In order to provide flood warnings as far in advance 
as possible the first quantitative rainfall forecasts for a 
storm are made by analyzing the meteorological characteristics 
of the storm while it is still well out at sea and often before 
appreciable rain has fallen on the watersheds that will be 
affected. As the storm front moves inland and as the situation 
becomes more clearly defined, particularly by rainfall measure- 
ments from the remote telemetering stations, the forecasts are 
revised and improved. As can be seen, in a situation of this 
type, any steps that can be taken to obtain more and earlier 



-147- 



data will result In earlier and more accurate flood forecasts 
and enable the more timely issuance of flood warnings. 

The first steps are to take emergency action to 
repair the system that v;as destroyed by the storm and on an 
emergency basis to put in an adequate telemetering stream and 
rain gage network. This work already is in progress to provide 
flood protection during the remainder of the present flood 
season. There also are two other new steps that can be taken. 
The first is to install additional weather radars, such as that 
located at Sacramento. There is a particular need for one in the 
North Coastj probably at Eureka, and possibly one should be 
located at San Francisco. The second new step is to give strong 
consideration to the possibility of stationing a permanent 
vjeather ship an appropriate distance offshore. Such a weather 
ship also should be considered as a possible location for a 
weather radar. 

It is recommended that the Department of V/ater 
Resources and the V/eather Bureau study the problem of making 
flood forecasts for the North Coast and Central Coast areas 
and take steps to expand the existing telemetering rain gage 
network, to install additional weather radar, and to station 
a permanent weather ship off the California Coast. 

Revised Operation Criteria for Folsom and Shasta Reservoirs 

As noted elsewhere in this report, the December, 1964 
flood nearly filled Folsom Reservoir, a condition that could 'have 



-148- 



caused excessive releases into the already full downstream 
channel of the American River and endangered the Sacramento 
metropolitan area. This points up the need for additional 
flood control storage on the American River. It also suggests 
that it would be possible on an interim basis, pending con- 
struction of Auburn Dam, to make additional space in Folsom 
Reservoir available for flood control. 

Shasta Reservoir on the Sacramento River also could 
provide additional flood control reservation for an interim 
period. The Bureau of Reclamation has recently studied the 
possibility of raising the normal water surface at Shasta. 
The additional capacity thus provided, plus some Increase in 
the present flood control reservation, v;ould provide additional 
flood protection to the Sacramento Valley and Delta area. 

It is recommended that the Corps of Engineers and 
the Bureau of Reclamation immediately review the operation 
criteria for Folsom and Shasta Reservoirs to see if it is 
feasible to increase the flood control reservations; in the 
case of Folsom on an interim basis, pending the completion of 
the upstream Auburn Reservoir. 

Protection of Existing Flood Control Facilities 

A survey of the Sacramento Valley levee system 
Immediately following the flood period indicated that the 
general condition of the system v/as "fair". In many areas 
erosion had taken place. Almost v/ithout exception the erosion 



-149- 



was in areas where the levees were not protected by rock or 
cobble riprap. This flood, as have past floods, demonstrated 
that rock levee protection is best and that vegetation does 
not provide adequate protection to the levee banks. 

It is reconmiended that the priority of flood require- 
ments be kept in mind in futiore discussions of and in planning 
for other uses of the river channels. The existing levee and 
bypass system was designed primarily as a single-purpose 
system. In planning recreation and other uses of the system 
careful consideration must be given to the need to protect the 
system. Where necessary the project should be rebuilt to 
serve multiple-purpose uses by doing such things as construct- 
ing protected berms where vegetation can be allo^ved to grow. 

Expanded Approach to Flood Control 

California has sustained a direct damage of almost 
$400,000,000 in the eight floods since 1950. This figiire does 
not include the indirect damages to the economy of the State. 
The total of direct and indirect damages, although it is not 
known in definite amount, is so great as to raise at least three 
questions: First, are the flood frequency analyses up-to-date? 
Second, are we planning our flood control projects on a broad 
enough base and with a broad enoiogh scope? Third, are the 
measures of economic justification and financial feasibility 
that have been applied to flood control projects in the past 
and are being applied today valid? 



-150- 



Nearly all major Central and Northern California 
streams have experienced two historic flood flow peaks in the 
past ten years; once in 1955 and again in 1964. In the past 
nine years the Yuba River has had three all-time peak floods. 
Since 1950 there have been eight major floods. The flood 
frequency curves that are being used in studies of feasibility 
of flood control projects should be examined to see that they 
reflect the facts of the past 15 years. It is recommended 
that state and federal agencies, particularly the Corps of 
Engineers, review their flood frequency studies. 

A much broader approach to flood control should be 
taken. Future flood control studies should be done on a basin- 
wide basis and should be comprehensive enough to take into 
account development of water for othei' uses such as conserva- 
tion and power. But with particular reference to flood control, 
a master flood control plan should be developed for each of the 
State's basins v;hich would give proper and balanced considera- 
tion to all of the possible means of abating flood damage such 
as reservoirs, levees and stream improvements, bypass channels, 
flood plain management, watershed management and advance purchase 
of rlght-of-v;ay. 

There should be a state flood control plan. Such a 
plan would include the flood control plans for the major basins 
and would be a master framework within which all agencies could 
work to provide the State vjith needed flood protection. Although 



-151- 



studies of flood control problems were made in connection with 
work leading to The California Water Plan they were not compre- 
hensive enough or complete enough to constitute a comprehensive 
California Flood Control Plan. In part this probably was due 
to the fact that the State has done little in this field because 
historically the Corps of Engineers has had the major respon- 
sibility for flood control planning and construction in 
California, as in all of the United States. In recent years, 
the U. S. Soil Conservation Service also has been active in 
small stream flood control under watershed protection legisla- 
tion. Although federal expenditures for flood control in 
California since 19^9 have ranged from a minimum of $25 million 
annually to a peak of about $47 million in 1959j it is apparent 
that these expenditures are Inadequate to meet the flood control 
needs of California's expanding population and economy. The 
State Government is the only entity vested with a statewide 
interest and responsibility. It is in the best position to 
exercise leadership, general direction, and coordination of 
all interests concerned. 

It is recommended that comprehensive flood control 
plans be developed for each of the State's major basins and 
also that a state flood control plan be developed. Where plans 
are available they should be reviewed and broadened to be fully 
reflective of multiple-purpose basin planning. Generally basin 
flood control plans should be made by the Corps of Engineers 
although all agencies v/orking on basin-wide water development 



-152- 



plans should broaden their planning to take flood control fully 
into account. The State flood control plan should be coordinated, 
developed and maintained by the Department of V/ater Resources. 
The Legislature should provide funds for the Department to 
immediately initiate an appropriate program. That plan also 
should be revised periodically as part of the core planning 
effort of the Department. The plan should be an effective guide 
to the inclusion of flood control in the v;ater resource develop- 
ments of all federal, state and local agencies. 

Criteria for economic justification and financial 
feasibility for flood control projects need to be reviewed and 
probably revised. In this regard consideration should be 
given to developing a rationale v;hereby the element of pro- 
tection of human life may be given paramount consideration, 
along v;ith economics, in determining project feasibility or 
the timing of project construction. Also, a method should be 
sought to express in terms of monetary benefit the enhancement 
of the potential for economic grov/th of an area when that area 
has a substantial degree of flood protection. It is recommended 
that state and federal agencies review their criteria used in 
making economic justification and financial feasibility studies. 

Increased financing and new sources of financing 
should be made available to construct flood control projects. 
It is recommended that strong efforts be made to increase 
federal appropriations for flood control. In this general 



-153- 



regard, the federal Water Supply Act of 1958 may have Increased 
applicability and Importance to California. It permits earlier 
construction of many projects in the interest of flood control, 
or other urgent need, than could otherwise be financially 
possible. 

State financial resources also should be considered. 
The State advanced the timing of federal construction of the 
Black Butte and Nev; Hogan Projects by pledging certain finan- 
cial assistance that was then lacking. Construction of New 
Exchequer Dam and Reservoir is being advanced by the State 
Legislature authorizing a loan of $8 million from the California 
Water Fund to the Merced Irrigation District to cover the 
federal flood control contribution until- such time as appropria- 
tions therefor are made by the Congress. The State decided to 
construct Oroville Dam ahead of the economic timetable on the 
basis of affording protection to lives and this decision paid 
off in December, 1964. 

Flood Plain Management 

For certain communities and areas, because of their 
location, protection against floods of the magnitude that 
experience shows may reasonably be expected to occur may be 
completely impractical. The fact that certain communities in 
the State have been completely flooded out twice in nine years 
is strong evidence that they are poorly located. It is logical 
that such communities should be relocated at higher elevations. 



• 154- 



above the flood plain, and further, that the dangerous flood 
plains be managed to prevent or to strongly discourage building 
upon them. 

LegislatlonVwas introduced in the 1963 Session of 
the Legislature, which would have permitted the Department of 
Water Resources to assist local agencies in establishing and 
enforcing flood plain regulations in areas subject to frequent 
flooding. In addition to being supported by the Department, 
this legislation was supported by the Corps of Engineers, the 
State Reclamation Board, and the California Water Commission. 

It is anticipated that a revised bill will be 
Introduced in the I965 Session. It would permit the State to 
guide and assist local agencies to properly manage their flood 
plains by authorizing the State to review and comment on pro- 
posals for regulating flood plain use, or to carry out flood 
plain studies upon request of local agencies. It also would 
authorize the State to withhold reimbursement for the cost of 
lands, easements, and rights-of-way for federal flood control 
projects where local agencies fail to establish regulations. 
Such a law would enable the proper management of the State's 
dangerous flood plains as an essential part of comprehensive 
flood control plans. 



1/ Senate Bill 1435. 



-155- 



It Is recommended that this legislation be strongly- 
supported. 

Flood Plain Information Studies 

In recognition of the foregoing problem of flood 

plain management, the Congress has given the Corps of Engineers 

authority to provide technical information to local planning 

agencies by Section 206 of the I96O Flood Control Act. That 

Section reads as follows: 

'SEC. 206. (a) That, in recognition of 
the increasing use and development of the flood 
plains of the rivers of the United States and of 
the need for information on flood hazards to 
serve as a guide to such development, and as a 
basis for avoiding future flood nazaras by 
regulation of use by States and municipalities, 
the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of 
Engineers, Department of the Army, is hereby 
authorized to compile and disseminate Information 
on floods and flood damages, including identifi- 
cation of areas subject to inundation by floods of 
various magnitudes and frequencies, and general 
criteria for guidance in the use of flood-plain 
areas; and to provide engineering advice to 
local Interests for their use in planning to 
ameliorate the flood hazard: PROVIDED, That the 
necessary surveys and studies will be made and 
such information and advice will be provided for 
specific localities only upon the request of a 
State or a responsible local governmental agency 
and upon approval by the Chief of Engineers. 

"(b) The Secretary of the Army is hereby 
authorized to allot, from any appropriations 
hereafter made for flood control, sums not to 
exceed $1,000,000 in any one fiscal year for the 
compilation and dissemination of such infor- 
mation. " 



-156- 



This program provides information that is vital to 
studies of flood plain management and to the development of 
flood control plans. It is seriously handicapped, however, 
by the statutory limitation of $1,000,000 each year for the 
entire nation. A substantial increase of funds for this 
purpose would permit expanded studies of flood problems. Such 
increased financing could come about through an increase in 
federal funds or by appropriation of state funds, either on 
a cooperative basis or by contracts with the Corps of 
Engineers. It is recommended that strong support be given to 
an increase in federal funds for this purpose. 

Watershed Management 

The management, or lack of management, that is 
given to a watershed helps to determine whether there are 
floods or usable water, erosion and sediment or productive 
land. The use of floodwater retarding structures, sediment 
control and gully-stabillzing structures, vegetation, contour 
farming, and Improved fire fighting capabilities, have both 
Individual and accumulatively favorable effects on the quality 
and quantity of stream flow. Benefits from these measures are 
many and varied and are both on-site and off-site. As more 
flood plains are developed, the need for watershed protection 
will increase. It is r e commended that the U. S. Soil Conserva- 
tion Service and State Division of Soil Conservation, who are 



-157- 



principal sponsors of such programs In California^ give special 
attention to Implementing such programs on watersheds of streams 
ana portions of river basins v/hlch habitually cause the greatest 
losses In lives and/or property, | 



-158- 



CHAPTER VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The previous chapter presents "The California Flood 
Control Program-- 196 5" . In that chapter a considerable number 
of recommendations are made regarding projects that should be 
expedited, authorized, or planned and actions that should be 
taken or studies that should -be made. Those recommendations 
constitute the general recommendations of this report and will 
not be repeated here. Action on those recommendations v;ould 
implement The California Flood Control Plan. 

In the short time available to prepare this report 

it has not been possible to make studies that would indicate 

priorities that should be assigned to all of the foregoing 

recommendations. Such priorities should be determined as soon 

as possible as a part of a comprehensive flood control plan 

for the State. In the meantime, from knowledge of existing 

flood control and flood protection facilities and from the 

experiences of recent floods, the following immediate actions 

are recommended. 

o Authorize and construct Marysvllle Reservoir 
on the Yuba River (page 130). 

o Authorize and construct Auburn Reservoir on the 
American River (page 130) 

o Expedite studies of Dos Rios, Spencer, and 

English Ridge Reservoirs on the upper Eel River 
to determine the feasibility of construction 
for flood control in advance of need for water 
supply (pages 130 and 131). 



-159- 



o Expedite studies of the Butler Valley Project on 
the Mad River for flood control (page 131). 

o Expedite studies and authorize and construct 
Knights Valley Reservoir In the Russian River 
Basin (page 131). 

o Expedite studies of the Paskenta-Newville Project 
looking toward early construction (page 131). 

o Expedite studies on the upper Sacramento River 
tributary of Cottonwood, Deer, Mill, and Cow 
Creeks looking tovjard early construction 
(page 132). 

o Accelerate construction of Sacramento River Bank 
Protection Project (page 13^). 

o Authorize and construct Nashville Reservoir on 
the Cosumnes River (page 139). 

o Authorize and construct Lakeport Reservoir on 
Scott Creek (page 139). 

o Authorize and construct Wilson Valley Reservoir 
on Cache Creek (page 139). 

o Authorize and construct the Eel River Delta Levee 
Project (page 139) . 

o Authorize and construct the Sonoma Creek Project 
(page 140) . 

o Authorize and construct the Napa River Project 
(page 140). 

o Authorize and/or construct the following projects 
in Southern California (page l40) : 

1. Lytle and Warm Creeks 

2. Beardsley V/atershed 

3. Revolon Watershed 

4. San Gabriel River V/atershed 

5. San Diego River Mission Valley 

6. Tijuana Rivsr Basin 

o Make comprehsive basin-wide studies with flood con- 
trol as a major purpose in the following areas 
(pages 142-144) : 



-160- 



1. Sacramento Valley and Sacramento- San 

Joaquin Delta (page l42) 

2. San Joaquin Valley (page 143) 

3. Eel River Basin (page l43) 

4. Klamath River Basin (page l43l 

5. Trinity River Basin (page 143$ 

6. Mad River Basin (page 1441 

7. Smith River Basin (page 144") 

8. Russian River Basin (page 144) 

9. Minor Northern California Basin 
Projects including Lost River-Tule 
Lake, Butte Valley, Shasta Valley, 
Scott Valley, South Fork Pit River, 
Susan River, and North Fork of the 
Feather River above Lake Almanor 
(page 144) 

o Establish area flood control centers in or near 
Eureka and in San Francisco Bay area (page 145). 

o Construct a reliable radio network to provide 
communications to the North Coast (page 146) . 

o Expand the existing hydrologic telemetering net- 
work in the North Coast (page l48) . 

o Install additional I'/eather radar in Northern 
California (page l48) . 

o Investigate the possibility of stationing a 
permanent v;eather ship off the Northern Cali- 
fornia Coast (page 148). 

o Increase flood control reservation in Folsom 

Reservoir pending completion of Auburn Reservoir 
(page 149). 

o In planning recreation and other uses of the 
existing levee system give consideration to the 
priority of flood requirements and if necessary 
rebuild the system to serve multiple-purpose 
uses (page 150) . 

o Review flood frequency studies (page 151). 

o Initiate studies to provide and maintain on a 
current basis a statewide flood control plan 
(page 152) . 

o Initiate studies to develop master flood control 
plans for the major drainage basins of the State 
(page 152). 



-I6l- 



o Review and revise criteria for economic justifi- 
cation and financial feasibility of flood control 
projects giving consideration to the element of 
protection of human life (page 153). 

o Increase federal appropriations for flood control 
(page 153). 

o Enact at state level strong flood plain manage- 
ment legislation (page 156). 

o Increase funds available for flood plain Informa- 
tion studies (page 157). 

o Give special attention to watershed management pro- 
grams on streams where greatest flood damages are 
suffered (page 157). 



-l62- 



PLATE 



MAJOR 




PLATE 3 



IT) 

k 



V 



























00 


<o 
























CVI 


lA 

ENCY 
RESOURCE 

TIONS 

ER 1964 


























< 



< 


^ 




















u 

UJ 
Q 


s> 




















N 


l'ifr< (D 


X w 


4> 




















(\J 


ATE OF CA L 1 FC 

RESOURCES 
T OF WATE 
ON OF OPE 

F DECEM 


J 1- 

c!> a: 

O UJ 

a: > 


//OO PST 
operative 

1 1 




















(J 

UI 
Q 






























/ 

/ 








10 


^-^^^ ° 


?^ 


5^ 


















C\J 


H 5 > 2 


r _j 

UJ 


5 *> 










1 


/ 

f 








o 

UJ 
Q 




UJ 


q> ^ 










1 














" N <li" 










1 












o 




tties 
age 










1 


\ 








in 

CVJ 










c v> 












\ 
















f? 












I 








u 

UI 
Q 










<; •; 












/ 


























/ 




















5 < 
^ie 










/ 










CO 










^^ 










/ 










o 

UI 
Q 










1 


3 ^ 










r 


























^ 
























J- 


^-" 


















CVJ 




























































u 

UI 





- "^ 


























Q 


^-. 


"^ •*>.. 


























CM 










""^ 




~~^ 
















O 
UI 
Q 


















^"" , 




































^^ 






CVI 
























^""^^ 


































UJ 




























V 


Q 




























\ 


o 




























\ 


CVJ 

(J 




























\ 




























\ 


UI 




























\ 


o 



L_- 



o 
o 
o 

o" 
o 



O 

o 
o 

d" 
o 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 
m 



o 
o 
o 

o' 
o 



o 
o 
o_ 

o" 
o 

ro 



o 
o 
o 

o" 
o 

CM 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



SdD Nl Monj 



PLATE 4 




o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


























o 


in 


o 


If) 


o 


If) 


o 


If) 


o 


If) 


o 


If) 


o 


h- 


m 


CM 


o 


h- 


in 


CM 


o 


h- 


If) 


CM 


lO 


CM 


CM 


N 


CM 


— 




— 


— 









SdO Nl MO~ld 



























PLATE 5 


lU 

o 


(0 


UJ 

_l 
-I 




















CM 





















3 

o «^ 


0> 


> 




















UJ 
Q 


U UJ o 




li. 1- 






















q: 


q: 






















RNIA 

AGE 
RAT 


UJ 

m 


< 




















GO 
CVJ 


rr 5 A 


2 
UJ 




Q. CO 
< 

q: I- 






















UJ 




















ATE OF 
RESOU 

T OF 

ON OF 


UJ 


u. 


HYDROG 
RIVER A 




















Q 
















y 




N 


ST 

THE 

MEN 

IVIS 




2 
















/ 




CVJ 


















/ 




1- Q 


q: 












, 






r 




UJ 


oc 





< 














y 






Q 


< 

Q. 

UJ 


1- 


m 

3 














c 




















X 













>- 
















\ 




CD 
CJ 
























y 


























/ 




UJ 




























Q 




























in 
























/ 




CVJ 


























/ 


























/ 




Ul 












^ 










/ 




Q 












k 










/ 
















<o 








jT 


















<:i 








y 






'3- 












C5 








X 






CVJ 












t^i 






X 





















^^ 






X 


















r^ 






c 








UJ 












"" 






x^ 








Q 












^ 






^^ 


"V 


















„ _ ^ 








J 


















^^ 








y 


















k 






^^ 








10 












■* 






^10'^'^ 








CVJ 












Ci 


























a 


^^^.^^^ 



























•— 


"^^ 












UJ 














v> 














Q 














*<_ 














CVJ 














^^ — 


■ — ^ 












CVJ 

u 




















'"^.^^^ 


























^^ 








Ul 






















> 





























^ 






CVJ 
u 


























"^ 


























X 


Ul 


























\ 


Q 










































































































































m 





ID 





in 





in 





in 





in 





N 


IT) 


PJ 





t^ 


in 


CM 





r^ 


in 


OJ 


10 


CM 


CM 


00 


t\l 


— 















S3D Nl MOld 









































PLATE 6 








fO 






























q: 


























01 








X 
























<\j 


UJ 




O 

> 


Q. 
< 
























o 






















o 




UJ 'J- 


OC 
























Ul 


q: 




(/) «o 


O 
























o 


3 
O 


(0 


T FOLSOM RE 
ECEMBER 19 


O 


(r 














































F CAL 1 FORNIA 

URGES AGENCY 
" WATER RES 


2 
O 

K- 
< 

UJ 

a. 
o 

u. 


o 

>■ 

X 

o 


o 
> 

UJ 
CO 
UJ 






















00 
CVJ 

u 

UJ 
Q 




































/ 






TATE 
RESO 

\JT OF 


o 

z 
o 


>0 


_J 
h- 


o 
















7 


^ 


CVJ 








^ 












"UJ i^ 


w 


3 


en 














J 


^ 




o 

UJ 
Q 


f 2 


> 


q: 2 


o 


_J 












( 




: 




o 


5° 


1 


o 








Q. 






> 


^ 










u. 








-* 














< 

UJ 




o 










• — 








\. 




OJ 


Q 




q: 


1 










"b 






I 


X 










UJ 

2 


u. 














/' 


^•' 


/ 




U 
UJ 






< 


^ 












> 


y 




f 




Q 


















Q- 






i 












1 




















^ 













Q) i: Q >^ 












5 

:3 4 




^^^^ 


^ 


\ 




in 






















^ 


'■■■ ' 




y 


: 


CM 








^'"^ ? tt 












^ \..m 








/r 




o 
























m 


f 




UJ 
Q 








^Xi „ s 




















Wi 


*, 
































^m 


W 


































P 




^ 


^g^ 




H 




























JSiESI 


^ 




CVJ 








^"-^<- 

^•^5::^ 












^ 










^^s 


^g J 


E 


o 


















V 






^H 




H 




; 








<b k V r. 


















_ 




^ffl 


^ "* 




UJ 








Q 


L. 


<o o S 














p^ 


*"*• 






I 


1- 




Q 


























1 . 


^ii^<»lil tU^ 




^. 












1 


' 














, 




■^=-|| 




^k ^ 




CVJ 




























^^^ 


















< 








\ 










o 

UJ 




























\ 






N.; 


"-....,. 




I 


BbfJ 


'^^SSS^^ 


Q 




















"v,*^^^ 










^p 




























"■^- 




--^ 


V 




*« 


jV^vgMgWjj 


CVJ 

CVJ 
o 




























\ 




-<i"^ 






























) 








UJ 




























/ 








Q 




























1 










































































""*»-. 


V. 


tio 



































\ 


% 


CVJ 
































\, 


t:': 


o 
































\ 




































N| 


UJ 
Q 


































X 





o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


in 


o 


lf> 


o 


in 


o 


in 


o 


in 


o 


in 


o 


t^ 


ir> 


CVJ 


o 


t^ 


in 


CVJ 


o 


t^ 


in 


CO 


ro 


OJ 


CVJ 


CJ 


CVJ 


— 















SdD Nl MOli 































































PLATE 7 


u) O 


c 








































<»• 




^ 


UJ — 


OJ 
















O) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1 (X> 


o K- 


e3 
















^ HIHHHIBmiBli - 






















:^ 


















































:ali fornia 
tCES AGENCY 
VATER RES 
OPERATION 

ISON OF 
PRECIPI 
- 1964 


CO 

E 






























GO 


















in 




ro 






























00 


•" * ^ 


in 


is: 






























N 


; 


0^ 






































































■ -Too ■ 




















































STATE 01 

THE RES01 
MENT OF 
IVISION 

COMPA 

M 5 DA 

1955 




















































<x 




t 


•4.^ 














U> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H (£> 


o 














'"^^Hjumniiimni - 


ex. 
















































t- Q Z) 


k— 


















































^ ^ 


(X> 

-o 
•a: 


















































< 
Q. 

Li. 

C 


1 X 

1 t^ 






















cvj 

CM 


■^;:vy*"'?TO^ 


in 
in 


r- 


^__ 


^^^_ 


5 


. II 


■^^n 


n 


_^ 


_ 












- 






^.^ 




_^ 


















C 


>■ 




_ 






_ 


_ 






_ 


_ 






— 


_ 




_ 






_ 




_ 


t 


a> 
















r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H u> 


— 
















-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 0^ 


;> 
















c\ 




— _ 














































c 






























































o 






























































E 






























































in 
in 


-f 


iii^Sii^p 


(T3 


















o| 


' ^?i^^^^^^^ 


o> 


CJ) 




















OJL 


-n 


















■III 








x;!::^ 


X-X-: 


I'j'M':' 


••:•:■:•: 


:-:-:-:-:^ 


j-:-:-:-:-:- 


:-:-:-a 


















o 








J 








































^ 


.SC 














(D 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H ^ 


a> 














OJ 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H (T) 


CJ) 














CO 






















































C/5 

=3 
































































in 
in 


o 

CD 




;'" "" ^^^^^^^iiiii 


QD 










C 




- 


1 1 




1 — 




_i, 








— 






— 


— 


N 






HAW 




^ 


^^^ 


" 


" 


iiiS 


^ 


en 


C 






c 


^a 






















































sr 


o 






sr^^^^^H 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M ^ 


>^ 






U>^^^^^| 


H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^H a> 


c: 






cvj^B^B^^ 


H^H^^P^^^Pi^l^^^HpH^I^^H^l^^H^B^l^pi^^^^^p^p^^l^i^ 


TO 






1 
























































CJ) 

O) 








s. « 






















































m 


i^r 


:y;y:V:':':':':':y:';V:' 




:3 






^1 


iiii^ 




in 


CD 








ID 






CD 


t\J ■■ 























































o 


00 


ic 


't 


(M 


o 


ro 


PJ 


CM 


<\J 


CO 


CO 



10 



00 Ifi 



S3H0NI Nl NOIiVildl03yd 



PLATE 8 



o 

z 

< 

CO 
UJ 

o 

Z) 

o 

CO 



<cr 



UJ 

X 



UJ 

o 

(T 

D 
O 
(/) 
UJ 

q: 
cr 

UJ 

< 
$ 
u. 
o 

h- 
z 

UJ 

h- 

tr 
< 

Q. 
UJ 
Q 



UJ 

O 
q: 
< 

X 

o 

2 CO 

o — 



(/) 



< 
a: 

UJ 
Q. 
O 

U. 

o 
o 



♦ 



< (T> 
UJ ~ 
Q. I 



z 
o 

o ^ 

< 

Q. 
O 

o 



— en 



^ CO 



on — 



CT3 



on 



GO 



SJD 000*082 






SdO 000 812 



I 



SdD 008'lZl 



I 



S\\\\\\\\\\\\W\k\\\\N^ 



:SdD 000 8l7l 



K^V\\V\\\\\.VVW.\\Vv^ 



CD 

O 

UJ 
Q 

If) 

in 



o 

UJ 

o 



1- 



in 
in 

(D 



o 

UJ 
Q 



SdD 000'092 



S\S\S\\\\SS\\SSSS<\SSSSSS\X\S\S^ 



I SJD 000 £02 ^ 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

d" 
o 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

m 



o 
o 

o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

ro 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

CM 



o 
o 

o 
o 



CO 



o 

UJ 
Q 

in 
in 
en 




SdO Nl 39dVH0Sia XV3d 



PLATE 9 



CO 
Ijj 



V) 

UJ 





o 




3 




ct 




J 




n 


CO 


O 


>- 


(D 


2 


> 


o 

J if, 


UJ 


O 

1- 


o 


IS 

It CO 
^ UJ 
< o 


q: 

UJ 

1- 
< 


< 

a. 
° i 


o 
o 

_l 
i ^ 


" q: 

u. 3 


is 
u. 


o 


L 


UJ CO 


O 




o 




o 
o 

IT) 



O 
O 



O 
O 



o 
o 

ro" 



O 
O 
OO 



O 
O 
ID 



O 
O 



O 
O 
c>J 



O 
O 

o 



o 
o 

00 



o 
o 

CC 



o 
o 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 



o 
o 

CM 



CvJCVJCVJCVJCM — — — 

133d - syov Ni 3i'\innoA 



^ 



MA' li 



THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 



RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 



RtT. JAN 6 1966 

jCD lib. 



0.) ' 



Dli 



JM 24M978 
)UE FEB 2 3 197p JUAI 1 3 1980 
ECEIVED 

APR 2 5 1980 

9HYS SCI LIBRARY 



'FEB --^URLC'D R 



^^•J SfifC'O 



^PR2 



?97? 




APR 2 RtC'D 

LIBRMAXNlvg^M 




F CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 

lip-50m-12,'64(F772s4)458 





381814 




TC82U 




Calif. Dept. of Water C2 




Resources. A2 




Bulletin. no.l59:65 




c? 
PHYSICAL 
SCIENCES 




LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVIS 



3 1175 00479 3397 



38l3lU 



^ 



Calif. Dept. 
Resources, 
Bulletin, 



of Water 



Call Number: 

TG825 

C2 

A2 

n0.l59:65